Oral
Answers to
Questions

Treasury

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Oxford-Cambridge Arc

Iain Stewart: What recent steps he has taken with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to deliver the economic growth potential of the Oxford-Cambridge arc.

James Cartlidge: Oxford, Cambridge and, of course, Milton Keynes are part of a globally significant area with world-leading technology, life sciences and space sectors. However, their growth potential is constrained by poor connectivity, a lack of lab space and high housing costs. The Government are committed to working with local authorities and other stakeholders to unlock growth. The first section of East West Rail is in construction and will bring benefits to my hon. Friend’s constituency in 2025.

Iain Stewart: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. A few weeks ago, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and I hosted an event for the East West main line partnership to launch its report, “Building Better Connections”, which sets out the wider economic benefits of the arc as a whole and the rail line in particular. I urge my hon. Friend to read that report and assure me that any investment decisions will be based on the wider economic benefit, not just on a narrow cost-benefit analysis.

James Cartlidge: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his fine words and welcome. We will consider that report with interest, and I was glad to hear about the event that he hosted with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend as a long-standing champion not just of the East West Rail connection, but of the wider growth opportunity that links in with that. This is such an important area not only for international competitiveness, but for the UK economy. As he knows, the first section of East West Rail is already in construction and we will set out the next steps on the later stages shortly. I reassure him that we recognise the significant economic growth that the project could unlock by increasing connectivity and supporting the region’s high productivity sectors.

Lindsay Hoyle: In that case, let us bring in Daniel Zeichner, as the other party.

Daniel Zeichner: I hear the answer, but this issue is so important not just for the arc, but for unlocking the transport and housing issues in a city such as Cambridge. On different days of the week, we get different views from different Secretaries of State. Can we hear what the Treasury’s view is on the importance of restoring the rail link?

James Cartlidge: As a fellow East Anglian MP, it is great to see the hon. Member working in partnership with colleagues on these important matters for his constituency. He will know that the region was singled out by The Economist in August 2022 as being vital to invest in if the UK is to achieve growth and proper investment, and that East West Rail was a key recommendation in the National Infrastructure Commission’s 2017 report to unlock the potential of the Oxford and Cambridge area, including Milton Keynes. That has not changed and we are committed to it.

Bolton: Public and Private Investment

Yasmin Qureshi: What recent estimate he has made of levels of (a) public and (b) private investment in Bolton.

John Glen: The Government have made significant recent public investment in Bolton. For example, the first round of the levelling-up fund invested £20 million to create the Bolton College of Medical Sciences, and Bolton received £22.9 million from the towns fund to support its long-term economic and social regeneration. On the second part of the hon. Lady’s question, the Government do not routinely make estimates of private investment in towns.

Yasmin Qureshi: Last week, I met the chief executive of Bolton and Bury citizens advice bureau. Among the many pieces of work that it does, it employs money advisers. However, the Money and Pensions Service—the arm’s length body that funds citizens advice bureaux—is set to lose 10% of its funding. For my local branch, that means about £22,000, or the cost of one member of staff. With demand for its services doubling, given the energy and cost of living crises, how can the Chancellor push through those callous cuts to a scheme that supports some of the poorest and most vulnerable in Bolton? Will he reverse those cuts?

John Glen: The hon. Lady refers to the Money and Pensions Service. During the pandemic, additional Government grants were made available to support debt advisers. Some of that money was not used. There has been an attempt to look at how that money is distributed, but I would be happy to take this matter back and refer it to the Economic Secretary to see what can be done to give clarification.

Jake Berry: It is not just in Bolton but in the adjoining area of Darwen and Rossendale that we welcome public sector investment, such as the Darwen town deal, which is investing £100 million. However, we are keenly interested to hear what those on the Treasury Bench will do to support capital investment, particularly in manufacturing businesses. We hope that in the forthcoming autumn statement  the Government will give some support to our great manufacturers in Lancashire.

John Glen: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is critical that we maintain capital investment, use that money efficiently, focus on outputs and outcomes, and ensure that we set the conditions for growth in the economy.

Cost of Energy: Support for Families

James Grundy: What recent steps his Department has taken to support families with the cost of energy bills.

Andrew Jones: What recent steps his Department has taken to support families with the cost of energy bills.

Jeremy Hunt: The Government have taken decisive action to support millions of households with the energy price guarantee, which caps the cost of energy at £2,500 for the average household. We are also spending £37 billion to support millions of low-income households.

James Grundy: Will my right hon. Friend tell me what the average household energy bill would have been if the Government had not intervened to help hard-working families across Britain?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his informative question, because it allows me to say that with the energy price guarantee at £2,500, the average saving for consumers across the country—including his constituents in Leigh, for whom he is a formidable advocate—is £700.

Andrew Jones: I have received correspondence from park home residents about the £400 of support with their bills. I recognise and welcome the measures to limit prices, but these households are seeing their electricity bills go up alongside the cost of their heating oil or gas bottles. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that his Department and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are working together to get support to park home residents before the end of the year?

Jeremy Hunt: I, too, have park home residents in my constituency. It is very important that we treat them fairly and give them the help that we are giving others, so we have set up the energy bills support scheme alternative funding as a way of helping them. It is designed to give them the equivalent of the £400 that we are giving to people with more normal energy consumption patterns. I will write to my hon. Friend with more details.

Sammy Wilson: BBC Radio 4 erroneously claimed this morning that energy payments to consumers in Northern Ireland would be held up because of the non-operation of the Assembly as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol. Ministers have worked with the Minister for the Economy in Northern Ireland and have made commitments that payments will be made before Christmas, but some senior civil servants seem to be seeking to use non-payment as a lever to get the Assembly back into operation. Will the Chancellor confirm, first, that money is available for  the package; secondly, that the energy companies are ready to deliver it; and thirdly, that the Government will keep their commitment to ensure that payments are made before Christmas? Will he also investigate whether civil servants are interfering in the political process in Northern Ireland?

Jeremy Hunt: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are absolutely determined to ensure that support gets out to everyone in the United Kingdom as quickly as possible this Christmas. I am absolutely not aware of any delay of the kind that he suggests, but I will happily make inquiries to make sure of that.

Nick Smith: The cold weather payment is a lifeline for those on low incomes, but the current £25 rate was set in 2008. Today, it should be worth £37. Will the Chancellor collaborate with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and look into updating the figure in the light of the energy crisis?

Jeremy Hunt: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have had extensive discussions with our excellent new Work and Pensions Secretary about how we support people on low incomes—precisely the vulnerable people that he is talking about. He will have to wait until Thursday for the details of our plan, but we have said that, in a very difficult time, protecting the most vulnerable will be our top priority.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister, James Murray.

James Murray: Two years ago, in a video entitled “Rishi Explains: Green Home Grants”, the current Prime Minister enthusiastically took credit for the green homes grant scheme. Six months later, the scheme collapsed and £1 billion was cut from its budget. The truth is that we have the draughtiest homes in Europe, but when it comes to insulating homes, the Government are nowhere to be seen. If the Government had followed our plan last year, 2 million of the coldest homes could already have been upgraded, saving households more than £2 billion on energy bills this year alone. Home insulation should be a no-brainer. Will the Chancellor explain why the Government will not follow Labour’s plans and get on with it?

Jeremy Hunt: There are all sorts of bigger reasons why we do not want to follow Labour’s plans, not least because they would bankrupt the economy. On the scheme to help people to insulate their homes, the picture that the hon. Gentleman presents is not correct. We are spending billions of pounds to help hundreds of thousands of families up and down the country to insulate their homes. We completely recognise that that is a vital part of our long-term energy policy.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson, Alison Thewliss.

Alison Thewliss: I welcome this latest Chancellor to his place. Many of our constituents, such as my constituent Angela, have seen their bills double. Angela’s gas bill has gone up from £130 to £260 a month. She lives in a tiny, two-bedroom flat on carer’s allowance and personal independence payment, with a son who has a disability, and she simply cannot  afford these bills. Cornwall Insight has estimated that come March, when the energy support ends, the price cap will rise to £3,700. There has been talk of targeting support after that, but National Energy Action has pointed out the risk that many people who are already suffering in fuel poverty will be excluded. What reassurance can he give people out there whose bills are already unaffordable about what will happen in March?

Jeremy Hunt: I want to reassure the hon. Lady. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury spoke to John Swinney, the Scottish Finance Minister, yesterday. We are thinking very carefully about all these issues, but to correct any misunderstanding, let me add that the energy price support that we give to families will not end next April, and I will announce on Thursday what that support will be.

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

Siobhan Baillie: What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reduce red tape for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Craig Tracey: What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reduce red tape for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Dean Russell: What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reduce red tape for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Giles Watling: What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reduce red tape for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Andrew Griffith: The Government are rightly reducing the burden of regulation for tens of thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises. Just a month ago, the presumption of exemption when Departments make regulations was extended from businesses with fewer than 50 employees to those with fewer than 500, and we expect 40,000 SMEs to benefit from that.

Siobhan Baillie: People in the Stroud district are looking for ways to improve the energy efficiency of their homes, but a constituent has raised with me the difficulty of securing finance for products such as solar photovoltaic and batteries. Will my hon. Friend agree to ensure that the Government work with me in looking into whether the Consumer Credit Act 1974 constitutes a barrier to banks providing finance for renewable energy solutions, and whether changes could be made to the Act to assist consumers and businesses without a cost to the taxpayer?

Andrew Griffith: My hon. Friend regularly champions the cause of her constituents with Ministers. The Government are committed to reforming the Consumer Credit Act, recognising the need for modernisation of this regulation. I hope that such reform can support the vital investment needed to improve the sustainability of homes in her constituency and across the UK.

Craig Tracey: As a former small business owner in the financial services sector, I know all too well how red tape and disproportionate regulation hamper competitors   in the industry, often to the detriment of consumers, particularly those who are vulnerable. The Financial Services and Markets Bill presents a great opportunity to ensure that our world-leading insurance and financial services industry remains globally competitive. Can the Minister confirm that he will take all possible steps to ensure that the Bill delivers to its full potential, with regulators being held more accountable for their decisions?

Andrew Griffith: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As he knows, the Government are committed to effective, efficient and proportionate regulation. He has advocated a number of amendments to that Bill, and I am giving them due consideration.

Dean Russell: A common concern for small business people I speak to, in Watford and beyond, is cash flow, which has a heavy impact on organisations, for instance when Governments make late payments. May I ask the Government to ensure that the announcement to be made this week sends the clear message that all Departments and local government bodies follow the prompt payment policy robustly and, whenever possible, encourage businesses to follow the prompt payment code, so that SMEs can be paid quickly and fully and do not suffer in the efforts to make efficiencies and savings?

Andrew Griffith: I know that my colleagues will join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend for the time that he spends helping small businesses. As he says, the Government must lead by example on prompt payment. They are committed to paying 90% of valid invoices within five days and 100% within 30 days, which is absolutely right, and the Cabinet Office’s Procurement Bill will ensure that that happens throughout the public sector.

Giles Watling: I recently attended a meeting with business leaders in Clacton who worry about being hamstrung on the global stage. We are going to be one of the highest payers of corporation tax anywhere. Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite recent financial upheavals, we must maintain our focus on growth and support our businesses, both large and small, by keeping a firm lid on corporation tax?

Andrew Griffith: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are on the side of small businesses and fiscal responsibly, and the introduction of the small profits rate will help the businesses that he talks about.

Valerie Vaz: When the Government cut the red tape and open the box, they will find 2,400 pieces of retained EU law, so what are they going to do to help small businesses navigate all the legislation that is going to drop on them at the end of next year?

Andrew Griffith: I welcome the hon. Lady’s conversion to the cause of easing the red tape that is buried within EU law. It is this Government’s objective to use our new-found freedoms to create regulations that are appropriate for the businesses of this country and that will help us to grow and deliver the prosperity we need for public services.

Chris Elmore: Some of our best SMEs are farmers and my constituency is blessed with many farms. Farmers regularly tell me that the duplication of forms is driving up prices and that pressures around  energy are increasing food prices, so can the Minister set out what more meaningful support he will be giving to farmers in my constituency and across the United Kingdom? At the minute, the Government are found wanting.

Andrew Griffith: Representing a rural constituency myself, I am familiar with the challenges to our food producers that the hon. Member talks about. I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs writes to him setting out what we are doing to ensure that we continue to have security of food supply in this country.

Emma Hardy: High street SMEs keep telling me how unfair the current business rate system is, and of course Labour agrees, so as we enter a Conservative recession, will the Chancellor follow Labour’s lead by lifting the small business rate relief for 300,000 businesses to give our high street businesses the boost they need?

Andrew Griffith: The Government have committed to review business rates, but it would be wrong for me to pre-empt the outcome of that review here today.

Margaret Ferrier: Following the mini-Budget, the former Chancellor promised to write to me about energy bill support for a small business in my constituency. That response has yet to materialise. Will the Chancellor please look into this and provide a response that I can share with my business, Equi’s Ice Cream?

Andrew Griffith: I will ensure that the case the hon. Lady raises is responded to.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Member without a tie, Ben Bradley.

Autumn Statement: Financial Support for Local Councils

Ben Bradley: If he will bring forward measures in his autumn statement to increase financial support for local councils.

John Glen: The Government are committed to ensuring that local authorities are able to deliver vital public services. At the spending review last year, we provided councils with the largest annual increases in core funding in over a decade, and the Chancellor will set out further information on the Government’s fiscal approach at the autumn statement on Thursday.

Ben Bradley: If we are ever to have a sustainable set of council services, we have to move money upstream into services that can help us tackle rising demand. That is the  non-statutory stuff—prevention services in communities, such as children’s services or youth centres, for example—but when budgets are tight, those non-statutory services are often the first to go, which removes councils’ ability to intervene and manage demand. With that in mind, what can my right hon. Friend do to support councils by ensuring that we take a long-term approach to managing those public services rather than adopting counter-productive plans based only on short-term budget pressures?

John Glen: First, I would like to thank my hon. Friend for the four-page letter that he sent to the Secretary of State, which I have studied carefully. He makes some sensible suggestions and recognises the dynamics of different pots being used effectively within local government, and as a local authority leader himself, he is obviously on the frontline addressing these budgets. In last year’s spending review we put money into supporting families and family hubs, and provided £500 million of “start for life” investment, but he makes a sensible point and on Thursday he will see how we are going to make that money work.

Meg Hillier: My local authority of Hackney has suffered cuts of nearly 50% over the last decade or so, but it nevertheless delivers efficient public services. Money given to good local authorities can be more cost-effective and better value for money for the taxpayer, so will the Minister consider that as the Chancellor approaches Thursday?

John Glen: Absolutely, I will. Of course, it is not just about the cash settlement; it is about the interaction with other pots of money that are being spent, particularly in the health service, which is at the top of my mind and the Chancellor’s mind as we concentrate on what to do on Thursday.

Affordability of Housing: First-time Buyers

Toby Perkins: What recent assessment he has made of the affordability of housing for first-time buyers.

Andrew Griffith: The Government are committed to helping as many first-time buyers on to the housing ladder as possible. We are investing £11.5 billion in building more of the affordable homes that the country needs. First-time buyers can access first-time buyer’s relief for stamp duty land tax, which means that 90% of first-time buyers need pay no stamp duty at all.

Toby Perkins: For so many younger people, even those on really good wages, the idea of owning their own house is now a pipe dream. We have 1 million more people in private rented accommodation and, since 2010, 800,000 fewer under-45 households own their own home. What is it about 12 years of Conservative government that has been so brutal for young people with ambitions to own their own home?

Andrew Griffith: The Government are very conscious and very supportive of people’s desire to own their own home, which is why we have made so many interventions on affordability. Underlying that is the strength of the economy, which offers great employment prospects for those who seek to work hard, to save and, ultimately, to purchase their own home. We are on their side.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister, Pat McFadden.

Pat McFadden: The consequences of September’s disastrous mini-Budget continue to be felt, as we will see in the autumn statement on Thursday—the third Budget statement in two months  from the fourth Chancellor since the summer, presided over by the fifth Prime Minister in six years. Whatever they represent, it is certainly not stability.
Mortgage rates are still well above what they were before the mini-Budget. I have a constituent who is a first-time buyer, and he is facing a £200-a-month increase on his mortgage quote compared with before the mini-Budget. Why should my constituent, and thousands like him, pay the price in their mortgage payments for the economic damage caused by the Government’s recklessness?

Andrew Griffith: The right hon. Gentleman does this House and his constituents a great disservice with that characterisation, which did not mention once the tragedy of the events caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the fact that we are coming off the back of an extraordinary intervention to protect this country, jobs and businesses from covid. In the future, when he characterises the economy, he owes it to all of us to be more proportionate.

Pat McFadden: I know that, after 12 years, the Government quite like stealing our ideas, such as the windfall tax and the energy price freeze, so let me offer a suggestion. High deposit demands, increased unaffordability due to price rises and, now, rising mortgage rates all mean it is increasingly difficult for first-time buyers to get on the property ladder, so will the Government consider Labour’s proposal for a mortgage guarantee scheme, as operates in countries such as Canada, to help first-time buyers get on the property ladder and to protect them from negative equity in times of market turbulence? Would that not be a practical idea to stop people being trapped in the private rented sector and to help them buy a home of their own?

Andrew Griffith: Not only is that a good idea, it is a Conservative idea that we have already introduced. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has belatedly latched on to it.

Philip Dunne: With interest rates rising around the world, many others countries are considering more imaginative ways of enabling those with mortgages to continue to pay. Will my hon. Friend look at the schemes operating in the United States that allow lenders to extend the duration of a mortgage to allow payments to remain on an even keel and, therefore, to remain more affordable for hard-pressed households?

Andrew Griffith: Yes, I will do that. My right hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that mortgage rates have been rising throughout the world. This Government will always be on the side of trying to protect people with mortgages. Lenders are responsible and are willing to extend. The advice is that people should always speak to their lender if they have difficulties. I will certainly look at the case he mentions.

Economic Stability

Ben Everitt: What steps his Department is taking to promote economic stability.

Laura Farris: What steps he is taking to ensure sustainable public finances.

Jeremy Hunt: Inflation is the enemy of stability and this Government have acted decisively to bear down on it, including through the energy price guarantee, which will take up to 5% off the headline rate.

Ben Everitt: I was very grateful for the Chancellor’s time last week when he listened to feedback from businesses in Milton Keynes about the economic situation and the situation they are in. As well as support for households, businesses, schools and councils, the main thing that came through all the things I managed to feed back to him last week was the need for certainty so that businesses can invest, forecast and plan. Will the package that he announces on Thursday contain a long enough period so that businesses can put that planning and investment into our economy, and we can grow our way to prosperity?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; having run a business myself, I know that that certainty and stability is what gives the confidence to invest. I want to reassure him that what I talk about on Thursday will include our plan for growth over the next five years as well as our plan for stability. Both matter, but in the end, as Conservative Members know, wealth is not created by Governments—it is created by businesses.

Laura Farris: I know that my right hon. Friend is working intensively to ensure that the United Kingdom can meet its current spending obligations, but can he confirm that the same prudence extends to our national debt? Throughout the summer, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said repeatedly that we cannot allow debt to spiral and we cannot burden future generations with further debt. Does my right hon. Friend share the Prime Minister’s commitment and will he use his statement on Thursday to set out a pathway to debt reduction?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend will know that Margaret Thatcher said that there is nothing moral about spending money you do not have, precisely because of what my hon. Friend says: it passes the burden on to future generations to pay it back. Currently, our debt to GDP ratio is about 98% and we are spending debt interest of £22 billion more in the year to date than at the same time last year—that is more than the entire budget of the Home Office. So I absolutely agree with her.

Seema Malhotra: Our growth rate in the 12 years since 2010 has been just 1.4%, which is lower than the OECD average, and behind that of the USA, Canada and Germany. The public should have an answer to this: why does the Chancellor think that is?

Jeremy Hunt: What the public know is that unemployment is the lowest for nearly half a century under a Conservative Government.

Chris Bryant: Energy inflation and food inflation are already making the finances of schools and local authorities almost unsustainable, with many in real fear of going bust in the next few months. May I urge the Chancellor, as he is thinking about Thursday, not to push this all down on to council tax, because many of the poorest areas of the country have the highest level of need and the fewest people who can afford to make additional contributions? So it would be entirely counterproductive to do that, and the ratchet effect could make local authorities even more unsustainable.

Jeremy Hunt: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. It is going to be a very difficult announcement on Thursday, because we are going to be asking everyone to contribute more. But we will be asking people who have more to contribute even more, and that will be reflected in our decisions on council tax and every other tax as well.

Lindsay Hoyle: You might save something for Thursday as well. [Laughter.]

Julian Lewis: I was encouraged by the Economic Secretary’s answer to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) about mortgages. I know that the Chancellor believes that the restoration of economic stability is essential for mortgages to come under control in the future, but will he confirm that he will bring in imaginative plans to protect people who took out mortgages in good faith and now find them unaffordable?

Jeremy Hunt: I can absolutely give my right hon. Friend that confirmation. Indeed, I intend to meet a group of lenders later this month to discuss that very issue.

Gregory Campbell: I think people understand the difficult choices that they and their Chancellor face come Thursday, but will the Chancellor ensure that the small and medium-sized enterprises across the United Kingdom that provide the backbone of our economy and employment opportunities are not forgotten?

Jeremy Hunt: I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking. We must remember that, for those businesses, very often the most insidious taxes are those that they have to pay before making any kind of profit, because those are the taxes that can make them go under. As the Conservative party—the party of small business—we will think very hard about their needs.

Peter Grant: Governments do not create wealth, says the Chancellor. Well, this Government certainly do not, nor did any of their predecessors.
Can the Chancellor tell us at what point in his predecessor’s so-called plan for growth did he realise that it was a recipe for economic disaster? If, like everyone on the Opposition Benches, he realised that before his predecessor had sat down, why did it take him so long to speak up about it?

Jeremy Hunt: I did actually reverse most of those measures within three days of becoming Chancellor, so, among my many failings, the one thing I cannot be accused of doing is being slow to change things.

Kit Malthouse: As I understand it, the Chancellor is basing his fiscal strategy on Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts, but does he agree that the only thing we know for certain about those forecasts is that they are wrong?

Jeremy Hunt: We know that all economic forecasts are inaccurate, but that does not mean that it is better not to have a forecast than to have one. In defence of  the OBR, I would say that its forecasts are more accurate than the Government forecast that we used to use before it.

HMRC Mileage Allowance Rates

Dan Jarvis: If he will make an assessment with Cabinet colleagues of the potential merits of reviewing HMRC mileage allowance rates to promote retention and recruitment in the public sector.

James Cartlidge: The Government keep the approved mileage allowance payment rate under review. As the rate is set using an average, it is more appropriate for some drivers than for others. Employers, including public sector employers, can agree to reimburse a different amount that better reflects their employee’s circumstances.

Dan Jarvis: Petrol costs are up by a third since January, but mileage rates for keyworkers have now been frozen for a decade. That means, for example, that midwives attending home births, social workers safeguarding vulnerable children and palliative nurses providing end-of-life care cannot afford in many cases the petrol they need to do their jobs. Will the Minister look to increase the mileage allowance payment rates?

James Cartlidge: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I think we are all conscious of the general increase in costs faced by keyworkers and all our workers, but let me make this point about the specific HMRC-approved mileage allowance payments rate. He will appreciate that, ultimately, it is there as an administrative convenience for both employers and employees. The employer can choose to pay more, though of course they would have to check the tax impact with the employee. We do sympathise about the cost of fuel, but that is why we took that crucial measure in the spring statement to cut the rate of duty on petrol and diesel by 5p a litre for 12 months. That is worth £2.4 billion for everyone who uses an internal combustion engine, whether in the public or the private sector.

Andrew Selous: I am sure that I am not the only Member to be concerned that, as MPs, we get considerably more than care workers doing domiciliary care visits. Can we try to even that out, so that some of the lowest-paid people in the public sector get a decent allowance?

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In my capacity as a constituency MP, I recently met with a domiciliary care company, and it is clear that this cost of running its vehicles is significant. I repeat the point that these approved mileage allowance payments are really there as an administrative convenience, so that employers can support their staff. Employers can pay more, but, obviously, there may be tax implications. The crucial point is that we have cut the tax on both petrol and diesel, and that tax cut was significant. It was only the second time in 20 years that we cut both the main rates of petrol and diesel.

Energy Profits Levy

Claire Hanna: Whether he plans to review the surcharge rate of the energy profits levy.

James Cartlidge: The energy profits levy was introduced from 26 May in response to sharp increases in oil and gas prices and to help fund cost of living support for UK households. It is an additional 25% surcharge on UK oil and gas profits. The Government have calculated that they expect the levy to raise more than £7 billion this financial year. All taxes are kept under review at all times.

Claire Hanna: Households and businesses are being crippled by energy costs, with support non-existent in the case of the Northern Ireland energy scheme. At the same time, Shell has reported quarterly profits of £8.2 billion and BP of more than £7 billion, but, under current rules, Shell is not expected to pay any windfall taxes in this year. It is encouraging that there is word that the Government are intending to extend the scope of the windfall tax, and it is not before time. Undoubtedly, there are difficult financial decisions to be taken, but this is not one of them. When even Shell is saying that this tax should be embraced, we know that the policy is in the wrong place. Will the Chancellor commit to increasing the scope of the levy and to closing loopholes on timing, share buybacks and the investment allowances that allow tax to be avoided by diverting profit into polluting and unsustainable fuels?

James Cartlidge: To be clear, the levy is an additional 25% surcharge on UK oil and gas profits on top of the existing 40% headline rate of tax, taking the combined rate of tax on those profits to 65%. The hon. Lady is right that the levy contributes to the support that will be going out to Northern Ireland; it will come in a month later, but will be backdated to 1 October, and it will include businesses as well as households.

Floating Offshore Wind

Stephen Kinnock: What fiscal steps he plans to take with Cabinet colleagues to support the development of floating offshore wind.

Wera Hobhouse: What fiscal steps the Government is taking to support the development of floating offshore wind.

James Cartlidge: We are committed to developing floating offshore wind to support our energy security and net zero ambitions. The contracts for difference scheme has already supported the first-of-its-kind TwinHub project off the coast of Cornwall, which will deliver enough energy to power 45,000 homes. The floating offshore wind demonstration programme provided £31 million in grant funding to support many other new innovative projects.

Stephen Kinnock: Floating offshore wind has the potential to transform the economy and jobs market in my Aberavon constituency and across south Wales, but it will only happen if floating offshore wind substructures and other components are manufactured and assembled locally. There are two concerns: first, the Crown Estate is putting in place leasing criteria that seem to be about the highest bidder rather than maximising local value and content, and secondly, there are rumours flying  around that the Government may be cancelling the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme, which will be fundamental to facilitating the whole programme. Will the Minister confirm that he will urge Crown Estates to maximise local content in the criteria and that the Government are 100% committed to the FLOWMIS programme?

James Cartlidge: The hon. Gentleman is a staunch campaigner for his constituency’s ability to take advantage of this exciting new technology, and I pay tribute to him for that. As he knows, the Crown Estate works independently to manage the seabed and has an important role in the deployment of floating offshore wind. Its approach for the 4 GW leasing opportunity in the Celtic sea is focused on ensuring the development of this new technology market in the UK as quickly as possible. But, to be clear—cutting to his point about content—the Crown Estate has announced that for the first time it is reforming the tender process to consider supply chain plans, sending a clear signal to the market that UK content is important.

Wera Hobhouse: Many renewable energy projects are limited by a lack of grid capacity. We have more wind farms ready for investment in the coming decade than the rest of the world, but the grid is not ready. For future offshore wind projects, who will be paying for the grid connections?

James Cartlidge: This issue has certainly captured the imagination in East Anglia, where the hon. Lady may be aware that there are certain proposals to bring forward improvements in the grid, although that is ultimately the responsibility of National Grid. We need to address the grid, but I hope she will agree that the country has already made enormous progress in increasing capacity from offshore wind. She may be aware that in 2011 renewables made up just 9% of our electricity; that figure is now over 40%.

Stephen Crabb: Floating offshore wind is emerging as a major new industry, both globally and for us in the UK, in places such as the Celtic sea. The key question for us is how much of the real economic value of that new industry stays here in the UK. To that end, I encourage my hon. Friend to meet Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Ministers and the Crown Estate, to ensure that the leasing rounds are properly structured and that the contracts for difference process and other policy tools, such as the FLOWMIS port funding and the freeport policy hopefully coming to south Wales, are all properly aligned to deliver British content.

James Cartlidge: I repeat the point I made to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) about content. I hope that addresses some of my right hon. Friend’s concerns, but I am more than happy to meet him first and then feed back to other Ministers and see what more we can do. He is absolutely right that this is an extraordinarily positive opportunity and, if we seize it, it will deliver for parts of our country such as his constituency.

Virginia Crosbie: The BP Mona wind farm, 20 miles off the coast of Anglesey, will generate 1.5 GW of electricity and provide more than  1,500 construction jobs and £3.5 billion of investment in an area desperately in need of good-quality jobs. Will the Minister urge his colleagues in the Senedd to invest in the Holyhead breakwater so that BP Mona can move the project forward, and will he confirm that investment in Holyhead port is the responsibility of the Welsh Government, not the UK Government?

James Cartlidge: I cannot think of a colleague who champions energy investment in their constituency quite as much as my hon. Friend. I can confirm that the port of Holyhead is a very important part of the wider transport and economic infrastructure of the UK. I know that the Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Security has written to her and specified quite clearly whose responsibility that is, and she is absolutely correct.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister, Abena Oppong-Asare.

Abena Oppong-Asare: The Government allow offshore wind but are still banning onshore wind. Ending the ban would give us a vital tool to reach net zero, make Britain a clean energy superpower, and open up new investment and growth opportunities. Keeping the onshore wind ban will make energy bills £16 billion higher between now and 2030. Why on earth are Ministers undermining green growth and cheaper energy by maintaining the self-defeating ban on onshore wind?

James Cartlidge: The Government are committed to delivering cheaper, cleaner and more secure power. That is why we included onshore wind in the latest auction round for contracts for difference, which have delivered a 50% technology cost reduction since 2015. The Government recognise the range of community views on onshore wind, and it is important that we strike the right balance between community interests and securing a clean, green energy system for the future. That is why we have committed to consulting on developing local partnerships for supportive communities in England who wish to host new onshore wind infrastructure.

Topical Questions

Rushanara Ali: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: I will be speaking for rather a long time on Thursday—

Lindsay Hoyle: That is subject to agreement as well.

Jeremy Hunt: May I start again and say that, subject to your agreement, Mr Speaker, I may be talking for rather a long time on Thursday, so I will be brief today? I will just say that, despite the difficulty of the package I will be announcing, I will sadly not be drinking any whisky as I do so.

Rushanara Ali: I thank the Chancellor for the work he is doing and congratulate him on his new post. We hope that he lasts the week, or maybe the fortnight. The Government scandalously allowed organised criminals and fraudsters to take billions of pounds of public  money through covid loan fraud as a result of the lack of proper checks. Estimates suggest that that has cost taxpayers £33 billion. Why should hardworking people pay for the Prime Minister’s fraud failures when he was Chancellor, and for the mini-Budget fiasco of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who crashed the—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. These are topical questions and are meant to be brief.

Jeremy Hunt: Of course, there are lessons to be learned about the way those schemes were administered, but I am very proud that unemployment remains at a 50-year low because of the decisions that the Prime Minister took on the furlough scheme and Government-backed loans. That was the right thing to do.

David Evennett: I regularly visit small businesses and entrepreneurs across my constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford. They are the backbone of our local economy, but like families, they have been badly hit by the cost of living. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that this Government will do all they can to help small businesses across the country to thrive?

Jeremy Hunt: That is what Conservatives are all about so I am happy to give him that assurance. It is not just words; it is action: the halving of business rates for most retail, hospitality and leisure businesses; the freezing of the multiplier on business rates; the furlough scheme; the Government-backed loans and the energy price support that we are giving businesses. All that is because this Government back business.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves.

Rachel Reeves: Today’s numbers show that real wages are down £1,000 a year. The Chancellor himself has admitted that the NHS is on the brink of collapse, and he is preparing for more stealth taxes on working people later this week. Getting our economy firing on all cylinders is essential for fixing this mess, so will the Chancellor tell the House where the UK is projected to finish in OECD growth rates over the next year?

Jeremy Hunt: May I say what a pleasure it is to do my first questions session with the right hon. Lady? I will very happily tell her about the international situation. Inflation is higher in Germany, the Netherlands, the eurozone and Italy. Our growth forecasts are falling less than the forecasts in Germany. Interest rates since the pandemic have gone up less here than in America, Canada and New Zealand.
“Despite what some…suggest, the recession has not been restricted to the UK, nor did it begin here.”—[Official Report, 24 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 249.]
Those are not my words, but those of Alistair Darling in 2010. If the right hon. Lady wants to be the next Chancellor, she should listen to the last Labour Chancellor.

Rachel Reeves: It would be nice if the Chancellor tried to answer some of the questions.
Out of 38 advanced OECD economies, the UK is forecast to finish last. That is 38th out of 38. All industrialised economies have had to face covid and the consequences of Russia’s illegal war, yet our country is trailing behind because of Conservative choices and Conservative failure. There is an alternative. Why does not the Chancellor match Labour’s ambitions for British industries in hydrogen, insulation, carbon capture, solar, nuclear and wind power to create new jobs here in Britain?

Jeremy Hunt: We will have many exchanges, so I ask the hon. Lady, when she picks a statistic about next year’s growth, not to do so too selectively because this year, we have the fastest growth in the G7. Since 2010, we have had the third highest growth rate in the G7, and we have the lowest unemployment for more than 40 years. That is because Conservatives take the difficult decisions that are necessary to make our economy thrive.

Andrew Selous: Given that we have an energy crisis, will the Government allow onshore wind where communities want it, require built-in photovoltaics, where they will work, on new homes, and allow solar farms on 3b land?

James Cartlidge: Further to my previous answer, the Government are serious about delivering cheaper, cleaner and more secure power. That is why we included onshore wind and solar in the latest contracts for difference auction round, and we will include them in future rounds. The Government recognise the range of community views on onshore wind and the need the prioritise our most productive farmland for food production. It is important that the Government strike the right balance between community interests, food security and securing a clean, green energy system for the future. That is why the planning system is designed to take account of those issues.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call SNP spokesperson, Alison Thewliss.

Alison Thewliss: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Austerity is a damaging Tory political choice, which is responsible for 330,000 excess deaths. A responsible and compassionate Government would explore all options to avoid it. Will the Chancellor consider taxing share buy-backs, as the US and Canada have done? The Institute for Public Policy Research and Common Wealth have pointed out that oil and gas, financial services and other companies have funnelled their mega-profits into share buy-backs. Does the Chancellor agree that that is inexcusable when he wants to hike taxes on working people and slash public services?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Member had better listen to what we say on Thursday before she jumps to conclusions. We will approach the difficult situation that we face progressively. We will ask those who have more to give more. I advise her not to talk down the financial services and energy industries, which employ thousands of people in Scotland.

Stephen Metcalfe: As my right hon. Friend knows, Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine has driven up energy prices across the world. The Government were therefore right  to support households throughout the country. What is the long-term plan to reduce our dependence on gas so that taxpayers do not have to subsidise energy bills?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the challenge of the past two years. Nationally, we are spending £140 billion more on energy. That is almost like supporting an entire second NHS. We have to have a long-term solution that is about energy independence and energy efficiency.

Ben Lake: The Chancellor will be aware of concerns about the adequacy of the £100 payment that the Government have proposed to support off-grid households with the cost of their heating. It is equally concerning that we still await details of when and how it will be paid, as well as the support that will be made available to off-grid businesses. When will the Government publish that information?

James Cartlidge: Like the hon. Gentleman, I represent a rural constituency, where probably the majority of households use heating oil. As he knows, the alternative fuel payment will ensure that all households that do not benefit from the energy price guarantee receive support for the cost of the fuel they use. We are currently consulting the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the timing and delivery mechanism for the alternative fuel payment. We are committed to delivering it this winter.

Jonathan Gullis: FairFuelUK’s latest survey of 17,000 motorists and hauliers shows that they continue to be punished by crippling and needlessly high fuel taxation, from which the Treasury has benefited to the tune of £3 billion. That is why I am backing the campaign of and FairFuelUK to keep the fuel duty cut at the very least. Does the Chancellor agree?

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend, like The Sun newspaper, is a champion of motorists, hauliers and all those in his constituency who rely on petrol and diesel vehicles for their—[Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh, but my hon. Friend is standing up for his constituents and doing the right thing. He is absolutely right to highlight the huge tax cut we put in place in the spring statement, worth £2.4 billion, through 5p a litre off the duty rate on petrol and diesel for 12 months. Of course, I cannot make fiscal decisions at the Dispatch Box, but we do keep these matters under review.

Imran Hussain: Earlier this year, Bradford submitted a levelling-up fund bid—the only bid developed from the grassroots up by local community groups—to build three new community-led health centres that would deliver transformational benefits for Bradford and act to reverse the crippling health inequalities that we face. Ahead of the announcement on Thursday, does the Chancellor see that if he does not back grassroots, community-led transformational projects like this, it is clear that the Government’s levelling-up agenda is truly dead?

John Glen: The Government are completely committed to levelling up. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a second round  of bids for the levelling-up fund. The results will be announced in due course, but he has made a very effective representation on behalf of his constituents and local authority.

Bob Blackman: As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on personal banking and fairer financial services, I have been in protracted correspondence with the Financial Conduct Authority about the Blackmore Bond scandal. Despite receiving more than 30 complaints and a whistleblower producing evidence, the FCA refused to investigate. I realise that it predates my hon. Friend’s appointment, but will he investigate this and force the FCA to take action?

Andrew Griffith: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case. It was, sadly, outside the FCA perimeter, but I would be happy to meet him, because I understand that it raises important issues for him and his constituents.

David Linden: It is not just individual mortgage payers who are impacted by increasing borrowing costs; that is a particular problem for housing associations such as Parkhead Housing Association, which I spoke to this morning. Previously, housing associations were able to borrow at fixed rates of 25 and 30 years, but that has been reduced. Would the Chancellor be willing to meet me, to look at how we can pursue this with lenders, to ensure that we do not stifle competition when it comes to building housing association properties?

Jeremy Hunt: We are looking carefully at that issue, and I would be happy for the hon. Gentleman to meet one of my Ministers.

Alexander Stafford: I welcomed the Chancellor’s predecessor to Rother Valley in the summer, to show him Dinnington high street and the money that was needed to upgrade it. He agreed to meet me further about levelling up. Will the Chancellor come to Rother Valley and Dinnington high street to see the levelling-up fund money that we need when the bid is in, and will he look kindly on our bid and make sure the whole of Rother Valley is levelled up?

John Glen: I am aware of my hon. Friend’s outstanding bid, and I would be happy to visit him to discuss the needs of his community and all the work he has done over the last couple of years to stand up for his constituents and secure investment in his community.

Virendra Sharma: My constituent registered with a regulated firm and invested in the financial product that an FCA-regulated broker recommended. My constituent and her father both lost money on the fraudulent product that the broker recommended. Does the Minister agree that the FCA should step in and support victims of scams, and will he empower and instruct the FCA and other regulators to be more aggressive in their support of the defrauded?

Andrew Griffith: I will happily meet the hon. Member to understand more details of the case. It is important that the FCA provides protection for consumers. That is one of the objectives of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.

Nicola Richards: OnSide’s youth centres do an incredible job of transforming people’s lives, and I think young people in my constituency deserve that opportunity too. Will the Chancellor support my calls for the levelling-up fund to be spent on that important project in West Bromwich?

John Glen: I am aware of the outstanding bid from my hon. Friend’s constituency. I cannot reveal the outcome of the deliberations on that competitive process, but I will be looking carefully at her bid and liaising with other Ministers on the outcome of that round.

Sarah Champion: Last week, over 100,000 civil servants from the Public and Commercial Services Union voted to take industrial action following attacks on their jobs. For the first time ever, the Royal College of Nursing has voted to strike over pay. Lecturers, health workers, teachers, postal and transport workers—all people who aim to support this country—are suffering because of the cost of living crisis and the former Prime Minister’s £30 billion ideological rant. The autumn statement needs to show that working people are being listened to. Will it do that, or will it just punish them?

Jeremy Hunt: I believe it will do that, because the cost of living crisis is at the top of our minds. We recognise the hard work that public servants do in a whole range of sectors and, as I know, with my background, in the health service as well. We must tread a fine line, however, because if we give inflation-busting pay awards to people who may deserve them and may be working extremely hard, that will fuel further inflation. We need to get the right long-term solution that brings down the root cause of people’s anger, which is over-high inflation.

Richard Fuller: The Bedford to Cambridge section of East West Rail is rated “unachievable” by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and a “waste of taxpayers’ money” by the Business Secretary, and growth in the Ox-Cam arc does not depend on it. Can the Chancellor use the autumn statement to finally clear the uncertainty around this deeply flawed project?

James Cartlidge: I paid tribute to my hon. Friend’s huge business experience and his time at the Treasury on Second Reading of the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill. Perhaps we should both read the report that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) referred to earlier, because as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) knows, we strongly support the growth potential of the Ox-Cam arc. After all, that part of the country is internationally competitive, so it is the sort of place that we need to grow if we are to compete internationally.

Amy Callaghan: Government advice to sit in the shade is not enough to protect our skin. Sunscreen products need to be more affordable. Will the Minister work with me and support my VAT Burn campaign to save the NHS money, keep more cash in our constituents’ pockets and help to protect our skin from melanoma and non-melanoma cancers?

Victoria Atkins: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The Government received about £143 billion in the last financial year from value added tax, which helps to pay for the services that we all care about, such as the national health service, so strict restrictions have been placed on the goods that can be exempted from VAT. I understand her concerns, however, and I would be happy to meet her to discuss what other forms of support we can provide. For example, we can commend Tesco, which has taken the decision not to charge VAT on its products.

Greg Smith: The noble Lord Berkeley in the other place has estimated that scrapping HS2 would save the British taxpayer £147 billion—more pessimistic estimates have the saving at £100 billion. With a day of difficult decisions coming up on Thursday, surely scrapping HS2 is an easy one?

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend is consistent on this point. We are always keen to hear savings suggestions from colleagues, but to be clear, HS2 is a long-term investment that will bring our biggest cities closer together and boost productivity. It currently supports 29,000 jobs and will create 2,000 apprenticeships. Through better connecting the country, it will open up new employment and leisure opportunities for millions of people.

Barry Sheerman: The Chancellor just mentioned my good friend Lord Alistair Darling. He should also look at the recent speech made in Huddersfield by another former Chancellor, Sir John Major. His analysis of what has happened to our economy since the Conservatives took over in 2010 is an absolute masterclass in what has gone wrong and what needs to be put right. Will the Chancellor read it and think about it before Thursday?

Jeremy Hunt: I always listen very carefully to anything that Sir John Major says. I know that he took difficult decisions that put the economy in excellent shape. The one thing that I do not want to do is bequeath it to a Labour Government.

Edward Leigh: As the Chancellor prepares for his autumn statement, will he remember the good voters of middle England—people who have rarely, if ever, been on benefits and who have worked all their lives for their mortgage and pension pot? They fear that more and more of them will be   dragged into becoming higher rate taxpayers and that their pension pot will be attacked so that the state can get larger and more can be spent on those on benefits.

Jeremy Hunt: Absolutely. I say to my right hon. Friend that it is the good voters of middle England who want us to be a country that pays its way, that does not borrow at the expense of future generations, and that can be trusted when it comes to sound money. That is what we will deliver.

Deidre Brock: Skyrocketing inflation, much of it caused by calamities on the Government Benches, means that the Scottish Government’s annual budget is worth up to £900 million less than it was just a few weeks ago. When will the UK Government devolve more borrowing powers to Scotland, so we can give the extra, desperately needed assistance to those struggling the most in our country?

John Glen: I spoke about such matters with Jon Swinney, in my second conversation with him since appointment three weeks ago, last evening. We discussed a range of matters, and I will always try to be as constructive as I can to find ways forward when the whole of the United Kingdom faces the inflationary scourge everywhere.

Julian Lewis: Given that we both agree on the need for a substantial increase in defence spending, does the Chancellor accept that any immediate, necessary freeze on it should not prejudice the goal of 3% of GDP in the medium term?

Jeremy Hunt: Let me just say to my right hon. Friend that he and I both agree on the vital responsibility of any Government to defend their shores and their peoples, and we are committed to doing what it takes to make sure we do that.

Caroline Lucas: In a letter to the Chancellor last week, Lord Deben, the chair of the Climate Change Committee, said clearly that demand reduction is “now the biggest gap” in UK energy policy. Will Thursday’s autumn statement include an emergency investment of at least £3.6 billion over the course of this Parliament, so we can finally roll out the long-awaited and very overdue home insulation programme that this country needs?

Jeremy Hunt: Lord Deben speaks extremely wisely on environmental and climate change issues, and we would always take what he says with the utmost seriousness.

Points of Order

Christine Jardine: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has been revealed that, in the Opposition day debate on Scottish independence and the economy on Wednesday 2 November, figures used by SNP Members were inaccurate. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) said that Scotland possesses
“25% of the potential European offshore wind and tidal resource.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 884.]
This was subsequently repeated by the hon. Members for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald). That figure has been debunked by the think-tank These Islands—[Interruption]—and by the Scottish Government’s own civil servants. The think-tank has shown that it is the product of a bogus analysis of a mixture of reports dating back to 1993, and freedom of information requests to the Scottish Government have shown that their civil servants have been privately warning against the use of this figure for at least two years. Given that this figure is completely fictitious, have you had any representations from those Members that they intend to come and correct the record?

Douglas Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) states, the figure of 25% used by the SNP is actually closer to 4%. [Interruption.] While SNP Members laugh at and heckle the research done by Sam Taylor of These Islands, they should remember what SNP Scottish Government officials have said. Two years ago, they said that
“we tend not to use this anymore.”
Also two years ago, they said that
“the 25% estimate has never, to my knowledge, been properly sourced”.
In January 2021, they said:
“Yes we did recycle those figures quite robotically without really checking them.”
Yet they are still being robotically recycled by SNP Members, including the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan). What representations have you had from those Members who just in the last fortnight have used deliberately misleading claims in this House, and if they did so knowingly, will they be asked to apologise?

Lindsay Hoyle: I think the hon. Gentleman should be a bit more cautious on the language about misleading, but I will now give my answer.

Ronnie Cowan: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Just a minute, please. Order. Can I just say to you, Mr Cowan, that two of us are not going to be on our feet at the same time? I am standing, I know your intention, and I will give my first answer before I come to you. Please, let us follow the orders of the House, which apply to everybody, including you.
I thank the hon. Members for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and for Moray (Douglas Ross) for giving notice of their points of order. The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of Members’ use of statistics. Members themselves must take responsibility for the accuracy of  their contributions. These Members have made their views clear, and I certainly do not want a continuation of the debate.
Mr Cowan, I am sure you are not going to continue the debate, are you?

Ronnie Cowan: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank you for your forbearance on this matter; I have no intention of rehearsing the debate. All I would say is that I checked Hansard and I clearly said “potential”, and I stand by that. If the Scottish Government and the industry had had investment from the UK Government, that potential—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are doing it again; the hon. Member will have to sit down. The answer is, “Thanks for that; it is a good clarification.” I am going to leave it at that; I am not going to continue the debate.

Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), the Chancellor promised a letter on arrangements to be made for park homes. Is there anything you can do, Mr Speaker, to ensure we return to what used to be the normal practice: that when correspondence is referred to, it is placed in the Library of the House? We all have skin in the game.

Lindsay Hoyle: The right hon. Member has put that on the record, and I am sure everybody on the Front Bench will have heard, including those in the Treasury.

Bob Blackman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice of this, but reports suggest that protesters in Iran are being sentenced to death and executions may take place almost immediately. Has any Minister given you notice that they will come to the House to make a statement on what protection and assistance will be provided for people in Iran, particularly UK citizens?

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the hon. Member for that important point of order. Nobody has come forward with a statement, and I am surprised the Foreign Office has not been knocking on my door to say it wants to make one. I am sure the point of order will have been heard, and an urgent question might be presented tomorrow.

Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The coroner recorded this morning that the death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak was caused by acute oedema—respiratory failure—but that that was caused by prolonged and severe exposure to mould growth in the home in which he lived. Mould growth in properties— both private and social housing—is an issue across these islands of ours; has any Minister given any indication that they will comment on the inquest today or in the future, and if not, can we at least alert the Treasury Bench to the coroner’s conclusions, because they have implications that go way beyond the tragic case of the two-year-old boy in my constituency?

Lindsay Hoyle: I totally agree that that is a tragic case and I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I have not heard of any statements; however, Ministers will have heard the points he has  raised and I hope they will consider them. I know the hon. Member will pursue this, perhaps in an Adjournment debate; if he puts his name in, he may well be successful.

Bills Presented

Motor Vehicle Tests (Diesel Particulate Filters) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Barry Sheerman, supported by Geraint Davies, Wera Hobhouse, Clive Efford, Dr Philippa Whitford, Christine Jardine, Matt Western, Sir Robert Goodwill and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to set standards as to the emissions particulate sensing technology to be used in roadworthiness tests for diesel vehicles; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 189).

Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests (Appointment by Parliament) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Christine Jardine, supported by Ed Davey, Daisy Cooper and Wendy Chamberlain, presented a Bill to make provision about the appointment by Parliament of an Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time Friday 9 December, and to be printed (Bill 188).

Tax Reform Commission

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Liz Saville-Roberts: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a commission to assess the differential impact of the tax system in the UK on different groups of people; to require that commission to make recommendations for reform of the tax system; and for connected purposes.
All proposals put forward by the commission would have to be consistent with the aim of increasing enough revenue to maintain spending on public services at current levels in real terms as a minimum, and support the delivery of policies aimed at reducing inequalities. This would be a joint endeavour by all Governments: the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the UK Government.
Why do we propose a tax reform commission? Two days from now we will be responding to the Chancellor’s autumn statement, itself a sticking plaster over the previous Chancellor’s fiasco of a fiscal statement in September. Running through the measures is likely to be the principle of temporary relief, but in no way are they likely to recognise the challenge of long-term changes in demographics, in climate and in geopolitics. There is a policy of denial from the Government that the common good is indeed dependent on the public purse. We are not self-sufficient individuals throughout our lives—covid should have taught us that. There is such a thing as society. The social contract requires actions to safeguard the common good that can be provided only by central Government and which require central Government to have sufficient funds to realise them. The Government have spent 12 years unpicking that social contract. David Cameron preached austerity as though it were the only remedy to the 2008 financial crash. Austerity was and remains the Conservatives’ value of choice, but austerity is an ideological decision and it has resulted in the slow-motion collapse of those public functions that should act as a scaffold for the common good. The effects of austerity: 300,000 excess deaths; hollowed-out, zombie public services; and the quilt of our social fabric ripped apart. Every service that depends on values held in common is failing: justice, energy infrastructure, transport infrastructure, environmental protections, social care, state education and health. Now, in 2022, that same assumption—that same lie—is peddled again.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor lecture us that “difficult decisions” are necessary to respond to the aftershock of Russia’s illegal assault on Ukraine and the effects of covid. We know that they mean Brexit, too, even though they do not dare admit it in public. They talk about restoring economic credibility—credibility was of course demolished by the Government themselves —but no veneer of clichéd Conservative fiscal fine words can hide the fact that the Budget will be a continuation of a calculated austerity agenda. Even if the Chancellor sticks to current budgets, the result will be real-term cuts driven by inflation and below-inflation public sector pay deals.
To put that into context for Wales, the Welsh Government have already estimated that the value of their three-year budget may well be £4 billion less in real terms than expected. Public sector budgets have been cut through the flesh and into the bone. There is nothing left for the Treasury to hack. Indeed, the Institute for Government has warned that, in virtually all cases, quick cuts to funding will result in worse services and the need to provide emergency funding at a later date. We all know that public services are the only way to provide the safety net that will save each and every one of us when we fall into need. Let us face it: debates over taxation and spending should be at the heart of democracy, but where are those debates? That is why we need a tax reform commission.
The commission would be empowered to consider a broad range of possible reforms. I will focus on a handful that I believe merit consideration and, at the very least, need to be discussed properly in the House. Let us begin with the question of wealth inequality. In the UK, the financial wealth held by the richest 1% of households is greater than that held by 80% of the population. The Chancellor says that everyone will have to make sacrifices, but we must ask: why should ordinary people pick up the bill when the wealth of the richest 1% is more than £3.6 million per household? There is no lack of wealth in the UK. What is lacking is a tax system that distributes it equitably.
We need to know what that weasel word “equitably” means. It is not just an abstract concept. Perhaps we would like to ask what equitable means in this context. I put it to hon. Members that, with a heartbreaking 34% of children in Wales living in poverty, our definition of “equitable” should be driven by the aim of raising enough revenue to be able to deliver policies that ensure that no one in the UK lives below the poverty line. Why would we aspire to anything else?
We need to ask why income is treated differently according to its source. Why are we treating income from work and income from wealth differently? Why not extend the same national insurance contribution rates that are applied to earnings from employment to income that is received from other forms of activity, for example, holding investments such as dividends, rent and interest on savings? That could raise an additional £8.6 billion every year. Why not look at reforming national insurance? Academics at Warwick University suggest that, if contributions were fully equalised for higher earners, it could raise £19.7 billion. Oil company BP reported obscene profits of £7 billion in the third quarter. Shell reported its second highest quarterly profit on record but did not contribute to the UK’s windfall tax on energy firms. The Chancellor is reportedly looking to expand the tax, but he should go further and remove the investment allowance which enables many companies to pay no tax if they commit to making investments, regardless of the environmental cost. That simply makes no sense.
As another high-profit industry, banks and the level of taxation they pay should also be considered by the commission. The Chancellor is reportedly considering shielding the banks from the increase in corporation tax by cutting the bank surcharge, a mechanism that is supposed to ensure that banks pay a higher effective rate of corporation tax on profits above a certain level  compared with other businesses. The timidity of this Government towards the banking sector is, frankly, embarrassing. Given that the industry will benefit from increased interest rates and mortgage costs, is it not appropriate for the banks to pay a fairer share towards introducing further cost of living payments? The Government could also choose to end the fundamental unfairness of non-dom status, which allows a select few to live in the UK but receive special tax treatment. Abolishing that could raise more than £3.2 billion each year.
The final reform I would like to touch on today is further devolution of tax powers. Currently, the Welsh Government are severely limited in how they can raise public funds. Setting our own income tax bands in a way that recognises who profits from what sort of wealth could provide a more sustainable source of income for Welsh public services.
The commission is a recognition that poverty is always a political choice. The UK Government can choose to identify new and fairer ways of raising money. In turn, that would allow the Chancellor to stand before the House and put forward proposals for reforms to the welfare system and long-term solutions to the energy crisis, and to set out how the UK Government will inflation-proof the budgets of our public services.
There is recent precedent for this work. Last year, the Irish Government established the Commission on Taxation and Welfare, chaired by Professor Niamh Moloney, Professor of Law at the London School of Economics. The commission was tasked with reviewing how best the taxation and welfare systems can support economic activity and income redistribution, while ensuring sufficient resources are available to meet the costs of public services. Among the principles on which they based their work was “adequacy”, and the understanding that one of the objectives of taxation should be to redistribute market incomes to achieve greater equality and prevent poverty.
To close, the UK Government may well have valid reasons to reject different ways of raising money. If they are confident of their own arguments, they would support the Bill to facilitate an open discussion in this House. Ahead of another austerity Budget, we in this House must ask ourselves: do we really aspire to condemning future generations to an unchallenged ideology that the common good is unaffordable, or is there another way?
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Liz Saville Roberts, Hywel Williams, Ben Lake, Alison Thewliss, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Caroline Lucas, Claire Hanna, Clive Lewis and Stephen Farry present the Bill.
Liz Saville Roberts accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 190).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (TODAY)

Ordered,
That,
(1) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14(2) (Arrangement of public business) in respect of precedence, today’s sitting shall be treated as an allotted day at the disposal of the Leader of the Official Opposition under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 14; and
(2) the Speaker shall put the Question on the motion for an Humble Address in the name of the Prime Minister no later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on this motion; and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

Humble Address

Oliver Dowden: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to return thanks to His Majesty for His most gracious message regarding including HRH The Princess Royal and HRH The Earl of Wessex and Forfar among those who may be called upon to act as Counsellors of State under the terms of the Regency Acts 1937 to 1953, and to assure His Majesty that this House will provide such measures as may appear necessary or expedient for securing the purpose set out by His Majesty.

Jim Shannon: I just want to welcome the statement on behalf of all the loyal citizens from Northern Ireland. We are very pleased to endorse and support the statement as put forward. As loyal citizens —in my case, for many years; in other cases, equally and for longer—we particularly wish to be involved and associated with the statement as put forward today.
Question put and agreed to.

Opposition Day - 8th Allotted DayOpposition Day

Management of the Economy and Ministerial Severance Payments

Lindsay Hoyle: I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment.

Lisa Nandy: I beg to move,
That this House censures the former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Member for South West Norfolk, and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon Member for Spelthorne, for their mismanagement of the economy while in office, which has resulted in an average increase of £500 per month in mortgage payments for families across the UK; and believes that, if they have not already done so, both Rt Hon Members should waive at least £6,000 of their ministerial severance payments.
Like every Member in this House, I have been inundated in recent weeks by constituents who have seen their dreams of home ownership go up in smoke and who have seen hundreds of pounds added to their monthly mortgage repayments since the disastrous mini-Budget which crashed the economy and sent interest rates soaring. Yesterday, I spoke to a constituent who has had her mortgage offer withdrawn. She is in private rented accommodation and her private landlord, like many others, is getting out of the system. She has been served with a no-notice eviction. She has a young son and she has been told to leave her home before Christmas. So I make no apology for coming to this House angry today. I am angry that this has been visited on my constituents. I am angry that this is a crisis that was made in Downing Street and that since it happened the Government have not lifted a finger to help.
Mortgage offers have been withdrawn. Dreams have gone up in smoke. We have seen the largest interest rate hike since 1989 and the cost of borrowing is at its highest in almost 15 years. A typical family is now paying £500 more every month towards mortgage repayments.

Peter Gibson: indicated dissent.

Lisa Nandy: The hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but it is a fact. This is money that many families across the country simply do not have. Food is going up, energy is going up, rents are going up and now mortgages are going through the roof. The one thing that this country cannot afford anymore is more of this Tory Government, who have been in office for 12 years.
Almost 2 million people are struggling to afford their mortgage costs. Government Members do not have to take my word for it—that is according to the Office for National Statistics. That is one in four mortgage holders. First-time buyers now face putting £1 of every £4 they earn towards their mortgage. Mortgage repossessions have soared by 91% compared with the same period last year, while the number of orders to seize property is up over 100%.
The crisis does not just affect homeowners; it is seeping into every part of the housing market. Buy-to-let landlords’ profits have declined by almost three quarters  compared with last year because of rising interest rates, which means many tenants, already forking out huge chunks of their income on rent, are seeing their rents go through the roof. This is a housing crisis, the likes of which we have not seen for a generation, and what caused it? Let us make no mistake that this is a Tory crisis created in Downing Street by a disastrous mini-Budget which crashed the economy and threw families up and down the country under a bus. It is no coincidence that, after the mini-Budget, more than 40% of available mortgages were withdrawn from the market. It is no coincidence that the Bank of England had to launch an unprecedented intervention to stabilise the markets. Hon. Members do not need to take my word for it; 12 days ago, the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee report said:
“The sharp pickup in UK interest rates has been partly driven by global factors, but UK-specific factors have played an important role”—
and that
“UK interest rates had increased by somewhat more than others”.

Alex Cunningham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her very good speech. I have been pleased to see lots of new homes being built in my constituency and nearby, because that has created jobs. However, does she share my anxiety that, with increased mortgage costs, the new homes will not be sold and that the people who will build the next phase will lose their jobs as well?

Lisa Nandy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will say more about that in a moment. This country is facing not just a housing crisis, but a growth crisis. Housing is a central part of the answer to the growth problem that the Tory Government have presided over for the past 12 years and it has to be part of the solution. This is a Tory crisis; it was made in Downing Street and is being paid for by working people. It is not Tory Ministers who will pay the price for it, but working people who will do so for years to come.

Neil Coyle: There are 8,000 mortgage payers in Southwark who face a rise, on average, of £1,254 a month. Does my hon. Friend agree that they are owed and still waiting for an apology from the Government for the mess of the mini-Budget, which directly caused their mortgages to rise?

Lisa Nandy: The hon. Member is absolutely right. Like many others, I was astonished to see the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), recently give an interview in which he said that the only thing that the Government had got wrong was not to explain themselves properly. That is absolutely disgraceful. We are giving Government Members the chance to set this right today and to show whose side they are on. Are they on the side of the people they put in office, who walked away with ministerial severance payments and profited from the crisis that they caused, or are they on the side of working people, who are currently paying the price?

Gareth Bacon: I would be grateful if the hon. Lady could advise the House on how many Labour Ministers refused their severance payments in 2010.

Lisa Nandy: I will throw the question straight back to the hon. Member: how many times did we see, in 44 days, the former Prime Minister and Chancellor essentially use the security of people in this country as an experiment? They treated us as lab rats for their ideology. They crashed the economy and left working people to pay the price.

Gareth Bacon: rose—

Lisa Nandy: If the hon. Member wants to be the first on the Government Benches to apologise, I will certainly give him the opportunity.

Gareth Bacon: I note that the hon. Lady did not answer my question; will she do so now?

Lisa Nandy: Honestly, a bit of humility from Government Members would be in order. The situation is unprecedented. They have been in office for 12 years. You put two people in office, or rather, they put two people in office, Mr Speaker—I would never for a moment suggest that you would do such a thing—who were fundamentally unsuitable for the role. They supported them, backed them to the hilt and stood up from the Government Benches and supported every move that they made. They cheered as the mini-Budget was announced and they still do not have the humility to apologise for the damage that they have inflicted on families up and down the country. The Chancellor may have U-turned, the new Prime Minister may have admitted that mistakes were made, and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities may have apologised for the error of his party’s ways, but apologies do not cut it. Government Members allowed this to happen. Without them, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) would not have become Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Spelthorne would not have been Chancellor. Government Members let it happen; they cheered as the disastrous mini-Budget was commended to the House. They may be sorry now, although I am still waiting to hear it, but the damage has been done. Some 113,000 people were forced to re-mortgage between the mini-Budget and the present Chancellor’s belated U-turn.

Jim Shannon: Does the shadow Minister agree that this is not just about those who have to re-mortgage or restructure their deal, but about people’s vision of having their own home? I and everyone in the House own their home. My constituents own or want to own their home, but their dreams have been knocked on the head. Does she agree that we are at a crossroads—betwixt where we are and where we will be? If we do not sort this out, people’s ambition to own their home will not be realised.

Lisa Nandy: The hon. Member and I have discussed that issue many times. As he knows, in my first job, I worked for the homelessness charity Centrepoint and  I learned that a secure, decent home that is fit to live in is the foundation of a decent, secure, richer, larger and more dignified life, and without it, nothing is possible.
Some 1.6 million borrowers on variable rate deals—one in five mortgaged homeowners—are seeing their bills rise higher than ever. Many of them face the prospect of re-mortgaging on more expensive deals because rates are now higher than they would have been otherwise.

Chris Elmore: My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech. On the damage done, I raised with the previous Welsh Secretary—we have had a few of those in the past few months—the issues that my constituent faces. They bought a house five years ago, and they have now come out of a five-year fixed mortgage and their mortgage has gone up by £276 a month. The solution for my constituent is to sell their home, so not only are this Conservative Government stopping people buying homes, but in some case people are having to sell their home and go back into the private rented sector or to a smaller house. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the damage this Conservative Government are doing?

Lisa Nandy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The truth is that before the former Prime Minister and Chancellor crashed the economy, we had a housing crisis in this country. We saw social housing stock being lost faster than it was being built, with rents rising in the private rented sector and a real squeeze on people there. The Government promised to do something about it, but we have had three years of them dragging their feet. We have had more Secretaries of State than we have had promises, and we have had a lot of those, but nothing has been delivered. I will say more about that in a moment.
Given all of that, I genuinely ask Government Members: where is the Housing Secretary? Why has he not met banks and lenders in the middle of this mortgage crisis? Any Government worth their salt would be moving heaven and earth to help families and protect vulnerable people as we head into what promises to be the harshest winter that many families can remember. The crisis is of such magnitude that we accept that there is no magic-bullet solution, but any Government worth their salt would do everything in their power and pull every lever to make a difference.
This afternoon, the shadow Chancellor—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves)—and I will be talking to lenders about what can be done. Why is the Housing Secretary not doing the same? He has a reputation for roving across Government as Mr Fix-It. This is a major crisis in his brief; why is he not doing everything he can to fix it?

Alex Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way a second time. I remember the mortgage rates during the Thatcher years: mine exceeded 15%. Despite a good income, we struggled, but all around us, people were losing their homes. Interest rates have some way to go to reach those levels, but does she share my anxiety that if the Government do not take the right action now, another generation will face double-digit interest rates in this country?

Lisa Nandy: I agree absolutely. Bringing stability back to the economy is the first step, but the Government could do more. We know that the only way out of this crisis is growth and we know how central housing is to that part of the puzzle. The Government could start by committing again to their target of 300,000 homes a year and do more than that by actually building them. The Conservative Government’s failure over 12 years to build enough homes is a major cause of the housing crisis.

David Linden: Before the hon. Lady moves on to the section of her speech about the Government abdicating responsibility, does she share my astonishment that the right hon. Members for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) are not here today? Given that they are no longer in Government, what else do they have to do that is so important that they cannot be here to account for their actions?

Lisa Nandy: I imagine that the right hon. Members are counting the value of their severance payments somewhere else. Meanwhile, the rest of us are dealing with our constituents who are suffering from the fallout of their appalling choices. Home ownership rates have fallen over the past 12 years and the number of new affordable homes that are available to buy has plummeted. That is before the mortgage guarantee scheme and Help to Buy come to an end later this year.

Chris Bryant: As an 11-year-old child at a primary school in the Rhondda put it to me on Friday morning, the Tories broke the money. That is the problem. Many people in the Rhondda are losing their homes, either because buy-to-let mortgages have collapsed and people are selling or because they cannot afford the additional mortgage fees. They are furious and scandalised that the people who brought that about are being rewarded with multi-thousand-pound pay-offs.
The Government may try to pretend that today’s motion is irrelevant, but will my hon. Friend confirm that every single time such a motion of censure has been tabled, the Government have sought to vote it down and not just run away? Sometimes that has led to people losing their salary or resigning, or to the Government falling. The Government cannot just pretend that nothing is happening today. They have either to vote the motion down or lose—and if they lose, they go.

Lisa Nandy: The Government have a clear choice today: they can stand up for people whose hopes and dreams have been shattered, or they can stand with a former Prime Minister and former Chancellor who have profited from a situation that will leave families across this country paying the price for years to come. If the Government do not back the motion, they cannot possibly turn up in this place on Thursday and tell us that this is about fairness or that they are on people’s side.
Millions of people are affected—not just those who will be paying more on their mortgages for years to come, but the millions who are stuck in rented accommodation, including thousands who saw their dreams of home ownership shattered when their mortgage offers were withdrawn in the days after the mini-Budget. Many of those families are facing the dreaded prospect of homelessness because they cannot afford higher rents.
The Government have promised to end section 21 no-fault evictions. Why on earth has that not happened yet? The Opposition called for emergency legislation months ago to make it happen. That protection is more important than ever this winter, but it is not there because the Government continue to drag their feet. Renters need greater protections, which is why Labour  has laid out plans for a renters’ charter to give families more security and stability in their own homes, including with an immediate end to no-fault evictions.
The truth is that there is no short-term plan to deal with the crisis, and no long-term plan either. The Government could reform compulsory purchase orders to build more houses. They could raise stamp duty on foreign buyers to stop them buying whole developments off plan. They could give first-time buyers first dibs on newly built homes. A serious Government would use the affordable housing budget that has already been allocated to get more homes built. That is the route out, not just from the housing crisis but from the growth crisis that the Tories have created over the past decade. I will say this to the Minister, because her boss is not here: we will be watching like hawks on Thursday. If a penny of the affordable housing budget is clawed back to the Treasury because it has not been used, that will be on him, on her and on all Conservative Members.
This country needs a plan. People need hope, and any Government worth their salt would be providing it. In that context, it is obscene that the former Prime Minister is in line to receive a severance payment of almost £19,000 and the former Chancellor is set to rake in nearly £17,000. That is more than many of my constituents earn in an entire year—and they would have some brass neck to pocket that much for a job so atrociously done. It is abhorrent that someone can become Prime Minister of this country with the backing of only 80,000 people who are all Conservative party members, and then appoint a Chancellor, jointly crash the economy, cost hard-working families hundreds of pounds every month for years on end, and walk away scot-free with a severance payment worth thousands in their back pocket. To quote the former Prime Minister, that is a disgrace.
Today, Conservative Members have an opportunity to put things right. They can vote with us to send a message that we will not stand for this. If they are serious about making a clean break with what has gone before and serious about fairer, more decent decisions that put hard-working people first, they can vote with us today. They can make it clear that what is happening is unacceptable and express the clear will of this House that it should not, cannot and must not stand.
The choice that Government Members face is simple. Whose side are they on? Are they on the side of the hard-working families who are suffering because the economy was set on fire and who are paying hundreds of pounds more, through no fault of their own, at a time when just getting by is already a struggle? Or are they on the side of the arsonists—the people who set fire to our economy and have left working people to pay the price? These severance payments are indefensible, and Government Members know it. Now is the time for the new Prime Minister and his MPs to decide which side they are on.

Lucy Frazer: I would like to start by recognising, as the Prime Minister has done, that mistakes have been made. No Government are immune from mistakes, but to suggest, as the Opposition have done, that these mistakes are the cause of a particular average increase in monthly mortgage rates is wholly inaccurate. Moreover, to say so is simply failing to be honest with the British people.
As the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), knows and ought to acknowledge, the economic downturn and the consequent rise in interest rates have been caused by two major global events: the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. She knows that countries across the globe are grappling with the same issues as us. She will know that the US Federal Reserve has been raising its base rate since March 2022. She will know that the economic situation affecting the UK is not unique to this country. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund has stated that a third of the world’s economy will be in recession this year or next as the impacts of the pandemic and Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine are felt across the world.

David Linden: May I bring the Minister back to this planet and back to reality for a little minute? Does she not understand that after the mini-Budget there was a run on pensions and the Bank of England had to step in? Will she not just accept that it was her Government who crashed the economy, leading to the pain that many of my constituents are experiencing?

Lucy Frazer: I do not accept that there was a run on pensions. I do accept that mistakes were made, but the Prime Minister is focusing on putting the economy on a strong fiscal path and taking the necessary decisions, which I am sure we will hear more about on Thursday.
The shadow Secretary of State will know that in these globally challenging times—in these difficult periods that are affecting people across the country—the former Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, has always been on the side of those who are most vulnerable and need support. He has remained committed to that with the Chancellor as he brings forward the fiscal statement later this week. As a result of the economic challenges, he and the Chancellor are now focusing on restoring stability, sorting out the public finances and getting debt falling so that interest rate rises are kept as low as possible. I welcome this opportunity to remind the shadow Secretary of State and the House of the Prime Minister’s record, of what we are doing to support people in all our constituencies who cannot manage, and of our absolute commitment to continuing to do so.

Fleur Anderson: The people I talked to on the doorsteps of Southfields on Saturday were not blaming Putin; they were blaming the Government for crashing the economy and for London’s rising mortgage rates, which mean that they are paying an average of £835 more a month. How does the Minister expect hard-working families to cope with that increase?

Lucy Frazer: The Government absolutely acknowledge that people are in challenging circumstances across the country. We want to support those people, and in fact we have provided support to help the hon. Member’s constituents and help those on the lowest incomes—that has been our priority for some time. I do not know whether she will remember that we have already provided £37 billion by way of a support package to help people with the cost of living. We are helping millions of households and businesses with rising energy costs through the energy price guarantee and the energy bill relief scheme, saving a typical householder—those people in her constituency—£700 this winter. Indeed, nearly one in four families across the UK will be receiving a  £324 cost of living payment, from last week, as part of our £1,200 package for the 8 million most vulnerable families.
We also recognise that one of the best ways to support people is helping them into work. Unemployment is at 3.6%, up from 3.5%, which was the lowest level since 1974. I am proud that we have helped more than half a million universal credit and jobseeker’s allowance claimants into jobs through our Way to Work scheme.

Christian Wakeford: The Minister speaks about helping those on the lowest incomes. What part of removing the caps on bankers’ bonuses or removing the 45% tax rate will help those people?

Lucy Frazer: The hon. Member is cherry-picking—and, of course, that particular announcement was of measures that will help the economy. He will know that, to help the most vulnerable, we have cut fuel duty and increased the personal threshold for national insurance contributions, raising it from £9,500 to £12,500. We are providing the cold weather payment, the warm home discount and the increase in the national living wage. For those with young children, we are providing £200 million a year to support the holiday activities and food programme. To help people into jobs, we have the kickstart and restart schemes and the skills bootcamps. We are helping vulnerable people across the board. Moreover, we have been doing so over the past year as these challenging circumstances have manifested themselves. [Interruption.]

Danny Kruger: My right hon. and learned Friend is reciting a list of all the generous support packages that are in place while facing a barrage of chuntering from the Opposition. Does she think they are aware that global energy prices have risen eightfold in the last year thanks to Putin’s invasion? That is causing the inflation that the whole world is suffering. European countries have higher inflation than the UK, and the Government are doing what they can to help households.

Lucy Frazer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I think it is really important to be honest with the British people about the challenges we face, why we are facing them and, therefore, how we can deal with them. To suggest that they are simply being caused by an event that happened two months ago is simply wrong, and Opposition Members know that.
As well as providing immediate support, we have focused on doing everything we can to get our finances in order domestically, because the risk of higher inflation becoming entrenched is the greatest danger. Sound money and a stable economy are the best ways to deliver what the hon. Member for Wigan asked for: lower mortgage rates, more jobs and long-term growth. We have taken every opportunity to do that in the first weeks of this Government—to restore credibility to the public finances, being up front about the enormous task ahead—and the markets have responded positively to what we have done and the direction in which we are going.
Let me now deal with a specific issue raised by the hon. Member for Wigan, that of interest rates. It is important to point out that the pricing and availability of mortgages are not decided by the Government; they  are commercial decisions for lenders in which this Government—indeed, any Government—do not seek to intervene. However, let me highlight four points that I am sure Opposition Members would like to hear.
First, as I mentioned earlier, we have already taken immediate action to secure the UK’s economic stability, demonstrating our commitment to fiscal discipline. That has provided stability for the markets, including mortgages. Secondly, although I recognise that many people are concerned about their mortgage payments and do not want in any way to diminish their real and legitimate concerns about the cost of living, about 75% of residential mortgages are on a fixed rate and are therefore shielded from rate rises in the near term. Moreover, because of changes that have been made to the regulatory regime introduced by the coalition Government applying the lessons of the last financial crash, the mortgage application process has been more rigorous, ensuring that borrowers will be able to continue to afford to make repayments. Today’s mortgage holders are therefore better placed to weather the changes.
Thirdly, the Government have some lines of support available aimed at helping people to avoid repossession, including support for mortgage interest loans for those in receipt of an income-related benefit. As I am sure the hon. Member for Wigan heard, the Government announced earlier this year that they would allow homeowners to access support for mortgage interest earlier than the current nine-month wait time. The details on that will follow shortly.

Neil Coyle: Will the Minister give way?

Lucy Frazer: I will give way shortly.
Furthermore, there is some protection in the courts through the pre-action protocol, which makes it clear that repossession must always be the last resort for lenders. Fourthly, if mortgage holders do fall into financial difficulty, guidance from the Financial Conduct Authority requires firms to provide support through tailored forbearance options, which could include a range of measures depending on individual circumstances. We continue to work with the FCA and the financial services sector to explore what additional measures may support efforts to help people facing rising mortgage costs.

Alex Cunningham: I am surprised by the Minister’s rewriting of history, particularly in relation to the Prime Minister’s role in failing our economy over many years. She has talked about fiscal rules. Can she tell me why many of the fiscal tables show Britain at the bottom end of the economic league?

Lucy Frazer: I think the hon. Member is forgetting that the UK is projected to have the highest growth rate in the G7 in 2023. I think he is forgetting—or is not aware—that we are seeing inflation across the globe. Germany’s inflation rate is 11.6%, Italy’s is 12.8%, and the eurozone’s is 10.7%. These are obviously issues that are affecting people across the globe. This Government are committed to supporting vulnerable people who need the support that we are providing.
Let me now address some of the points made by the hon. Member for Wigan about homes, home ownership and the shattering of dreams. It will not surprise Opposition   Members to learn that we believe home ownership to be an essential component of any long-term issues in our economy. This Government are proud of their track record of helping first-time buyers on to the housing ladder, and we have just expanded first-time buyer relief by raising the level at which first-time buyers start paying stamp duty, from £300,000 to £425,000. I seem to remember that the Opposition voted against that. As the hon. Member mentioned, we are also investing £11.5 billion in affordable homes. She will be aware, I hope, that since 2010 we have delivered 598,000 new affordable homes, and Government-backed schemes have helped more than 800,000 households to purchase a home since 2010.

Anthony Browne: I welcome the fact that Labour is joining the Conservatives in championing the desire to own homes, which has traditionally been a strong Conservative party position. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the rate of home ownership in the UK rose throughout the second half of the 20th century, reached a peak just as the last Labour Government came to power, and fell throughout almost the entire period of that Government? It was only as a result of a range of measures introduced by the Conservative Government, on their election in 2010, that home ownership rates started to rise again. Labour may say things, but after its 13 years in power  it left home ownership rates plummeting throughout  the UK.

Lucy Frazer: I am grateful for my hon. Friend and neighbour’s intervention. He is knowledgeable on all these matters and makes an important point about rhetoric and not action, because I also know, as I am sure hon. Members across the House do, that the Labour party did not deliver the building of the same number of affordable houses—social houses—as this Government did.
On house building, the hon. Member for Wigan seemed to suggest that she was not aware that the Levelling Up Secretary had committed to our plans to work towards 300,000 homes a year—[Interruption.] I have heard him commit to that several times since I have been in the Department. To that end, we have already announced £10 billion-worth of investment in housing supply since the start of this Parliament, with those supply interventions ultimately due to unlock over 1 million new homes over the course of this Parliament and beyond.

Neil Coyle: Will the Minister give way?

Lucy Frazer: I am going to continue for a moment.
Let us be clear about this. There has been a lot of criticism from the Opposition about what we on this side of the House would do, but what is Labour’s record of delivery? This Government have always been clear that it is difficult to solve everyone’s problems all the time, but let us consider what solutions a Labour Government would have come up with in this challenging time and their record of delivery. Our Prime Minister’s approach is one of fiscal responsibility and sound money. Does anyone across this House know what Labour’s annual fiscal black hole is? Labour has racked up £147.8 billion—  [Interruption.] I am happy to provide the details. Labour has racked up £159.8 billion of annual spending commitments and only £11.2 billion of annual revenue raisers across a five-year Parliament. Does the hon. Member for Wigan know what that would cost every household? It would be £5,474—

Lisa Nandy: Will the Minister give way?

Lucy Frazer: I am just going to finish this point.
We recognise that work is the best way out of poverty, and our approach is to support the most vulnerable to get into work. Under a Labour Government in 2010, benefits were the largest source of income for the poorest working-age households. Under the Conservatives now, it is their earnings. We have low unemployment, yet every single time Labour has left office, the unemployment figures have been higher than when it took office. It is Conservative Governments time after time who have managed the economy in a stable and responsible manner to secure our public finances.

Lisa Nandy: Can I just gently say this to the Minister? I have heard her blame the Labour party, although her party has been in office for 12 years. I have heard Conservative Members blame the Bank of England. I have heard them blame the bond markets and I have heard them blame society. What I have not heard is a single one of them have the humility to come here and say sorry to the people whose mortgage payments have gone through the roof and whose hopes and dreams have gone up in smoke. She knows, Conservative Members know, we know and most of all the public know who is responsible for this crisis. It is a crisis made in Downing Street by a Tory Government who still cannot bring themselves to say sorry. She can blame us all she likes, but they have had 12 years. Say sorry!

Lucy Frazer: I am grateful for the hon. Member’s very short intervention. I think she will have noticed that, throughout this speech, I have recognised that this Government, like every Government across many years, have made some mistakes. I have also stated the important point that the Prime Minister has shown, throughout his time as Cabinet Minister—as Chancellor and as Prime Minister—that he cares very deeply, as I and my Front-Bench colleagues do, about ensuring that vulnerable people get the support that they need.
I would like to turn to the issue of the severance pay. Payments connected to the loss of ministerial office are defined in legislation that has been passed by Parliament and been in effect for successive Administrations. Ministerial changes and departures are part of the fabric of government. All Administrations experience them and they are a routine part of the operation of government.

Rachel Hopkins: Will the Minister give way?

Lucy Frazer: I am going to continue; I think I have been very generous with interventions.
The payments being discussed today exist because of the unpredictable nature of ministerial office. Unlike in other employment contexts, there are no periods of notice, no consultations and no redundancy arrangements. The statutory entitlement has existed for several decades  and been implemented by all Governments over that period. Payments on ceasing office were made and accepted by outgoing Labour Ministers in the Blair and Brown years and by Liberal Democrat Ministers during the coalition Government.
The hon. Member for Wigan was asked a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) about the level of those payments, and she either did not know the answer or decided not to respond. So I will tell her—[Interruption.]

Nigel Evans: Order. Lisa, please would you allow the Minister to give her speech in silence? I can hear you more than I can hear the Minister.

Lucy Frazer: As an example of the previous operation of this provision, the data published in 2010 indicated that severance payments made to Labour Ministers in that year amounted to £1 million. To ensure transparency, the details of these payments are published in the annual reports and accounts of Government Departments. It is important to point out that a Minister will be entitled to a payment on ceasing to hold office only when they in effect step away from Government and are not reappointed for a period of at least three weeks. Periods of continuous employment, where a Minister might move between roles during the same Administration, do not result in multiple payments.
In this context, I would like to draw Opposition Members’ attention to the fact that my right hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) served as Ministers for considerable amounts of time before they were made Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that they therefore have a statutory entitlement. Let me be clear that, although this is a statutory entitlement, that is not to say that Ministers are unable to waive such payments. That is not a matter for the Government; it is entirely a discretionary matter for the individuals concerned. The Government do not regard it as appropriate to make arbitrary demands of individuals in relation to their entitlements. While the Labour party seeks to make cheap political points by denigrating the former Prime Minister and Chancellor, from these Benches I would like to pay tribute to the public service of Ministers of the Crown across the board and as long-standing Members of Parliament.

Anthony Browne: I would like to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for making an excellent speech. The Opposition are trying to link economic performance with severance pay. I recall that, back in 2010, the last act of the last Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury was to leave a note saying:
“Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid there is no money.”
And what happened to severance pay then? As my right hon. and learned Friend has said, Labour Ministers took £1 million in severance pay. Also, the four leadership candidates for the Labour party, Ed Miliband, David Miliband, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham all took—

Nigel Evans: Order. You cannot mention current sitting Members by name. Anyway, I think the Minister has got the gist.

Lucy Frazer: As we approach the autumn statement, the Chancellor has made it clear that there is a tough road ahead that will require extremely tough decisions to restore confidence and economic stability. As he has set out, if we are in a recession we will take the decisions needed to make it as short and shallow as possible. The fundamentals of the UK economy remain strong. The International Monetary Fund has forecast that the UK will have the highest GDP growth in the G7 this year, outstripping Germany, the US and Japan. We will continue to support the most vulnerable, to stabilise the economy by taking tough decisions to put our finances on a sustainable footing and to help the Bank of England to bring inflation under control.

Patricia Gibson: There was a time, not so long ago, when Governments took responsibility. Listening to the Minister, it seems that time has passed, as we heard no contrition and no humility for the Government’s calamitous decisions.
The events of the last few months in particular have been unbelievable, even by the standards of this Tory Government. “It’s all the fault of Putin. It’s all the fault of covid. A big boy did it and ran away.” People across the UK, including in my North Ayrshire and Arran constituency, are now suffering real financial harm and real financial hardship as a result of this Government’s incompetence. The Minister says there are tough roads ahead, and there are indeed tough roads ahead, but those roads will not be travelled by all equally.

Neil Coyle: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Patricia Gibson: I will give way.

Neil Coyle: The hon. Lady shows more courtesy than the Minister did.
The Minister would have us believe that the Government’s Budget had nothing to do with the 8,000 people in Southwark paying higher mortgage rates, and she would like to blame Russia. Does the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) believe that the Government should take measures to punish those in Moscow and Russia who have profited since the war broke out, such as the Prime Minister’s family, to the tune of £7 million?

Patricia Gibson: The public are becoming increasingly wise to the snake-oil salesman approach in which one thing is said, accompanied by handwringing and head shaking, but no real action is taken to tackle those who profit in a way that most people would find obscene.
If we listened to the Minister, we would think that the so-called mini-Budget had not happened at all. The name “mini-Budget” is ironic because it makes it sound small, but the damage it has caused is very considerable. This Budget revealed, for those who still harboured any vestiges of doubt, whose side the Tories are really on. The so-called mini-Budget sought to scrap the bankers’ bonus cap, reduce taxes for the most well off, cancel the planned increase in corporation tax, refuse to bring forward an extended windfall tax and weaken the rights of trade union members.
Labour’s opposition to the mini-Budget amounted to £24 billion out of £43 billion of tax cuts, and it was left to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as it so often is, to call this mini-Budget what it actually is:
“the most socially divisive Budget in a generation.”
I understand that Labour is a bit worried about upsetting hardcore Tory voters in England, but sometimes harsh language has to be used.
Once the markets took fright and Labour saw the extent of the mini-Budget’s fiscal irresponsibility, it demanded that the entire mini-Budget be reversed, which was not its original position. The Resolution Foundation noted that almost half the gains from the proposed tax cuts would have gone to the richest 5%, who would have gained £8,650 on average, while the poorest half of households would have gained £230 on average. Almost two thirds, 65%, of the gains from the personal tax cuts would have gone to the richest fifth of households.
Torsten Bell from the Resolution Foundation described the measures as a
“simply staggering…tax cut for richer households”.
Save the Children described the tax cuts as
“a hammer-blow to low-income families”.
There were £45 billion of unfunded tax cuts, almost exclusively benefiting the rich.
While all this was going on, the SNP in Scotland was being urged, not least by the hapless hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) among others, to follow the Tories in Westminster in entering the bowels of tax-cutting hell, where the most well off enjoy the windfall of a tax-cutting bonanza. Of course, he U-turned on this, as he so often does. It is often hard to tell if he is going somewhere or coming back.
It was, quite frankly, immoral for such a Budget to be delivered when so many are struggling to pay their bills, and the consequences of announcing these measures—again, it is difficult to call it a mini-Budget given its consequences—were catastrophic. The pound dropped by nearly 2% against the dollar, to the lowest level since 1985. The IMF rebuked the Government for causing such damage to the economy, and international investors declared that the UK’s greater economic suffering than similar countries is a consequence of the “moron premium” it pays due to its terrible leadership under the Tories. The cost of this so-called moron premium stands at £30 billion.
For households across the UK, the cost of the Government’s staggering incompetence is still being counted. Forty-one per cent. of mortgage deals that had previously been available were pulled by the banks, with more than 1,700 mortgage products being reintroduced at rates 2 percentage points higher, leaving hundreds of thousands of families across the UK paying far more for their mortgage. Pensions almost collapsed, and the instability within the UK was the talk of the international steamie. The Minister talks about restoring financial stability, but such urgent measures would not have been needed had the Government not caused such instability.

Danny Kruger: It is true that mortgages are at their highest rate in 10 years, in Germany. Does the hon. Lady blame the mini-Budget for that? If not, what does she think might be happening?

Patricia Gibson: The hon. Gentleman cannot escape the fact that the markets went into meltdown after the mini-Budget. I know this Government want to pretend the mini-Budget, the consequent run on the pound and the near collapse of the pension system did not happen, but government is about taking responsibility and even saying sorry when mistakes are made.

David Linden: Would my hon. Friend also point out to the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) that the Government cannot have their cake and eat it? They sometimes talk in this Chamber about how Germany is over-reliant on Russian gas, but simply trying to use Germany as a comparator in this argument is rather like comparing apples and avocados, is it not?

Patricia Gibson: Absolutely, and I am sure the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) will be taking note and learning the lessons he needs to learn from that insight.
There is not expected to be a reduction in mortgage rates any time soon.

Gareth Bacon: It happened yesterday.

Patricia Gibson: Some estimates put additional mortgage costs at £5,100 a year, on average, by the end of 2024. I hear the chuntering from the hon. Gentleman about mortgage rates going down. He would do well to reflect on the fact that 73% of mortgage holders are worried about rate rises.
Alongside this, the UK Government are set to raise taxes. They will balance the cost of their own incompetence on the backs of those who are already struggling, and whose struggles have been made so much worse by a Government who could not find their backside with both hands. The number of Scots seeking mortgage help has nearly quadrupled, again as a result of this Government’s staggering incompetence. It is particularly galling for people in Scotland, the majority of whom roundly rejected this Government.
As if all this were not enough, inflation is soaring, rising to over 10% in September, a rate not seen since the early 1980s, outpacing normal earnings growth and expected to peak at 11%. Inflation is partly driven by sky-high energy costs, and the Government are already backtracking on the one thing they have done to bring down energy costs, with the expected bill rises early next year hammering households all over again—we could see bills of more than £4,000 in April. The shadow of recession is looming over the UK and threatens Scotland’s recovery from the pandemic, with the Scottish Government’s budget £1.7 billion lower due to the impact of inflation and the need to help households on which the UK Government have turned their back. This means that in Scotland budgets have had to be reprioritised across a range of areas to provide this much-needed support. Sadly, for the Labour party, when Wales’s budget is under pressure it is the fault of the UK Government because of how devolution works, but when the Scottish Government’s budget is under pressure Labour joins the Tories in condemning the SNP. That is why Labour is thrashing around in its death throes in Scotland, because standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories is not working for it. The people in Scotland are not fooled.
It is bad enough that households across the UK are struggling to balance budgets in the face of soaring inflation, rocketing energy bills and huge increases in mortgage costs, and it is bad enough that my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran are facing unprecedented financial pressures, but while they do they are watching the revolving door of Government jobs, which have been changing with breathtaking speed. The loss of a Cabinet post is compensated for with three months’ salary, and that applies even to those who were in post for only a few weeks. Sky News has reported that this ministerial churn has amounted to £709,000 in severance payments for former Ministers and Whips. A total of 71 Ministers are eligible for this pay as a result of the instability of this Government. In view of the financial stress our constituents are facing because of decisions made by this Government, they have a right to know who has taken these payments, which are due entirely as a result of the instability and incompetence of this Government. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us today, but I certainly will not hold my breath.

Anthony Browne: I wonder whether the hon. Lady would refresh my memory. She has been talking about the severance pay that the UK Government pay to former Ministers, but what do the Scottish Government do? I understand that in Scotland Ministers who leave are also entitled to three months’ pay, just the same as it is for the UK Government, and that they often take it up. Do correct me, but I understand that it is the same.

Patricia Gibson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has listened to a podcast or something and has not been listening to half of this debate. The point of today’s debate is that the instability created by this Government means that Ministers who have been in post for a matter of weeks are hoovering up huge payoffs. If he can tell me that there is a precedent for this level of instability, I am happy to sit down and let him explain it to me. I see that he is not attempting to do so, so perhaps he should sit there and reflect on the fact that he is attempting to defend tens of thousands of pounds being paid to Ministers who were in post for a matter of weeks. If he is happy to defend that, he certainly will not have the confidence of my constituents.

David Linden: Just to reassure my hon. Friend, I can confirm, as a keen and close watcher of Scottish politics, that in the Scottish Parliament Ministers do not resign on average every four days, as they appear to do in Westminster.

Patricia Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for that, but the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) seems to think that this is okay and perfectly in order. Goodness knows what his constituents will make of it, but that is a matter for him.
If Labour Members are concerned about these obscene ministerial payments, they must support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), which would prevent this situation. That is really important, because we cannot allow this situation to continue. All of this adds up to an incompetent Government who have no direction or judgment. They have brought us into this mess—

Nigel Evans: Order. I just inform the House that the amendment was not selected.

David Linden: What a shame.

Nigel Evans: Indeed. So there is no amendment and it is a straight vote on the motion.

Patricia Gibson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I regret that the amendment has not been selected.
The Government have brought us into this mess, inflicted financial harm and are thrashing around to try to fix it. It is a failure of the Labour party not to be able to take on, in England, these arguments. The Labour party is preparing for government, but it has been caught out, because its interim leader, who was intended to steady the ship, will now, by himself, by default, lead the party into the next election. This is a London-centric ostrich, in common with the Tories, who thinks he can dictate, in a deluded fashion, to Scotland just how much democracy it can have. I think he will find, when the votes are counted in Scotland, that that will not have worked very well for him.
The reality is that when Labour and the Tories dictate to Scotland at election time, they are, in effect, two baldy men fighting over a comb. The voters of Scotland are sick to death of being patronised and talked down to, with their right to choose their own path dismissed and ignored by those who set themselves above them as their betters. The UK is in a mess—it is broken. Scotland did not vote for this and the incompetence of this Government is having an impact on Scotland in a way that is undemocratic, because we did not vote for this. It will never vote for a Labour party that is trying to out-Tory the Tories to win Tory seats in England with a pretence that Brexit can be good for the UK and to impose it on Scotland despite the damage it is causing. Shame on you! A plague on both your houses. Scotland will choose her own path and we will extract ourselves from this sorry mess of Westminster. Scotland will choose her own path in spite of, and because of, this shower in Westminster.

Laura Farris: Implicit in the wording of this motion is a rebuke, and I start by accepting it; errors were made during the tenure of the former Prime Minister. But I take issue with the Opposition in three parts: first, on the suggestion that the mini-Budget is responsible for the economic situation in which we find ourselves; secondly, on the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) should be treated differently from any other Minister, current or historic, in this Parliament; and, thirdly, on a suggestion that was not really developed by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) in her opening remarks, which is that my right hon. Friend should pay some sort of compensatory amount of £6,000 and that there should be some form of atonement. That theme has been heard more than once from those on the Opposition Benches. I think it was the voices on the left who said it was not enough that Tony Blair should take the country into war, but that he should stand trial and go to prison, and in this case people are saying that my right hon. Friend should pay some kind of reparations, of a figure that has no basis in reality. I refute that and   I will set out why. I know that Opposition Members will react if I suggest that some of the economic predicament we find ourselves in is a result of external forces, but when I say that the Bank of England base rate has been climbing all through 2022, I challenge them to name a country in the G7 where the base rate has not been doing that, just as every country on mainland Europe has suffered a huge inflationary spike as a result of the war in Ukraine and the energy blockade that has been the decision of Vladimir Putin. I challenge them to name a country in western Europe that has not suffered those effects. I also respectfully remind the Opposition that the 10 years we have had of unprecedented low interest rates were part of a one-off sustained emergency response by the Bank of England to the 2008 financial crisis that happened on their watch, and I will come back to that.
I wish to talk for a moment about the ministerial severance package. I have looked at the legislative journey of the law that underpins it. When the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 went through the House, the Opposition did not vote against it. Section 4 of that Act said ministerial severance is paid irrespective of rank, length of service, performance in the role and the circumstances in which the Minister leaves. The Labour party did not complain when that was applied to more than 300 Ministers who served at one time or another under the Blair and Brown Governments, irrespective of their performance, even in the case of people such as Peter Mandelson, who got this twice in 24 months. When the last Labour Government saw fit—through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act—to revisit the legislation in April 2010, six weeks before the general election, they made extensive changes to the terms of ministerial severance, but none to the qualifying criteria or the terms of repayment. There was no change even though the country was in the grip of the most serious economic crisis of my lifetime, even though there was, in the immortal words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), “no money left”—he will never be allowed to forget that—and even though they were responsible for the catastrophic economic decision to sell off our gold reserves. That was presumably because they were lagging in the polls, they were six weeks away from a general election and they were all looking forward to receiving their own pay-outs, which they did.
We are, in this debate, talking about a former Prime Minister, but I cannot let the moment pass without saying a few words about the former Leader of the Opposition, who, when he departed office, was entitled to an almost identical amount of severance despite his having led the once great Labour party into a sewer of antisemitism. I was recalling some of the main acts of his tenure. In 2018, the former Member for Liverpool Wavertree was hounded out of a party that she described as “institutionally antisemitic”. The serious and systemic discrimination that certain Members endured—

Nigel Evans: Order. Did you inform Jeremy Corbyn that you were going to make reference to him?

Laura Farris: I did not.

Nigel Evans: In which case, can I ask you to move on then, please?

Laura Farris: I did not inform the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, but he has been referred to more than once.
I will confine my point to this: whatever the Opposition say about severance payments, it might be surprising to learn that the former Leader of the Opposition would have been entitled to exactly the same severance payment. The only reason he did not get it was that he was over the age of 65—it was timed out on age criteria—but I am not drawing an equivalence in any event.
Whatever mistakes were made by the former Prime Minister, and I conceded at the start that mistakes were made, the ambition was laudable—as, to be fair, it so often is for Leaders of whatever stripe when they are at the helm. She was seeking to create a rapidly growing economy for the good of the country, even if her execution in that ambition failed. It is an ambition that many of us on these Conservative Benches share, and it is an ambition that Opposition Members share, too, as shown by the wording of their next motion, which is all about economic growth. But Conservative Members do not spend our time calling for scalps, or jail sentences, or compensation, or unique terms because a politician has failed. Rather than wasting time seeking social media clips, we think government is about the serious endeavour of delivering for the British people and providing answers to the issues that matter.

Nigel Evans: If we are to get everybody in and move on to the next debate at 4 pm, wind-ups will have to start at no later than 3.40 pm. If everybody stuck to about eight minutes without my putting the clock on, that would be helpful.

Naseem Shah: May I first respond to the contribution of the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris)? “It’s Ukraine; it’s everything else in the world,” the Government keep saying, but the disaster was cooked up in No. 10, and my constituents and those of Conservative Members are paying the price. The Government cannot keep faking it till they make it. They cannot carry on saying, “It’s this, that or the other to blame,” because the people out there—the public—can see what is happening. There is an air of desperation. The Government are going back to votes from 2010 and 2008 just to cover up their incompetence—

Danny Kruger: rose—

Naseem Shah: No, I will not give way.
For the past 12 years, we have been seeing the crisis develop under the Government’s watch, but we will not be taking any lessons from their “Fake it till you make it” approach. Bring on the next general election—the sooner it comes, the better, because people will say exactly what they make of the Government. This crisis was made in No.10, and nowhere else. It was made by the Government’s own hierarchy. The current mortgage crisis—and not just this one—was created by the incompetency of the Conservative party. The current Prime Minister, then a leadership candidate, warned the former Prime Minister that her economic plan was a “fairy tale”, but still the former Prime Minister experimented with the economy and gambled with the livelihoods and the savings of our constituents—of working people—knowing full well that people across the country were enduring a cost of living crisis.
The Prime Minister now warns of more difficult decisions to come and a profound economic crisis—a nightmare, not a fairy tale—for hard-working people, homeowners, first-time buyers and private renters who will now pick up the tab. The horrific incompetence of the former Prime Minister and the former Chancellor, which the Prime Minister, in his first speech, seemed to describe as well-intentioned “mistakes”, means that millions of families are currently facing mortgage interest rates of 6.5%. For people in my constituency, and those in the wider Yorkshire and Humber region, this means a monthly increase of £348. According to analysis by The Daily Telegraph, 1.8 million homeowners on two-year fixed mortgage rates will need to refinance in 2023. Interest rates are currently at 6.49%, which means that millions of families will face eye-watering hikes in mortgage repayments.
I ask the Minister to put herself in the shoes of families living in Bradford West—that is a tall ask to be fair. This year’s statistics by the End Fuel Poverty Coalition show that 44.6% of households in Bradford West are living in fuel poverty, a stark increase of 22.2% on the comparable figures for 2019. More than one in three children—almost 40%—are living in poverty, literally forced to skip meals. Parents are now looking towards a cold winter, not knowing whether they can keep their families warm in the year to come or whether they can even keep their homes.
The economy has been in the hands of the Tories for more than a decade, during which we have seen a fall in home ownership rates and affordable homes, with 800,000 fewer households being owned by the under-45s. It is clear that, due to this Conservative-made mortgage crisis, it will be harder for people to afford their own homes, robbing generations of independence, comfort and stability.
Since 2010, there have been seven Conservative Chancellors, four in the past year alone. When they first came to power, the future of our young people plunged. It was a Conservative Government who cut the education maintenance allowance, tripled university tuition fees, closed down libraries and youth centres and, with austerity, dragged our economy into downward growth. They failed to build homes and to allow first-time buyers a chance to buy affordable homes. As a consequence of their recklessness with the mini-Budget, they are now attacking working people and working families once again.
Under the Conservatives, the price of food to feed our families is up, the price of energy to heat our homes is up, the price to save us from losing our homes is up, and the price of transport to get us to work is up. Everything has gone up; it is not going down. The price for businesses to invest more has gone up. The price to rent a home has gone up. The price for childcare has gone up. The price for Government borrowing has gone up.
After more than a decade of Conservative destruction, the people across Britain are simply fed up. Enough is enough, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is about party politics. This is about those on the Conservative Benches saving their own skins and not about putting Britain first. If they had been putting Britain first and not putting party over people, they would have called a general election weeks ago. All this has been caused by a decade of Tory Governments, and my constituents deserve  better. The Government continuously say that this situation was not made in 10 Downing Street, and that the IMF and the Bank of England had to intervene because of what is happening in Ukraine. They try to measure us against other G7 countries. Their banks did not have to come in. They did not have a run on the pound. They did not have a run on their pension funds. We had that because of the Conservatives. That is what they did to our country. They made this mess, and they need to fix this mess.
On Thursday, I hope the autumn statement responds to my Bradford West constituents and does not put them into even worse poverty than they are in now—and if they really want to fix things, they should call a general election and let the people speak.

Paul Howell: We have all acknowledged that the mini Budget caused a short-term reaction by the financial institutions, but other issues have been far more significant to the British and global economies. Indeed, the gilt yields, which were the focus of so much angst, are now back where they were before the mini- Budget.
Fundamentally, the economy is in the state it is in because of the lasting impact of the covid pandemic and the ongoing war in Ukraine. The Government have done everything possible to soften the blow to ordinary households. The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) talked about costs being “Up, up, up, up,”, but interest rates have been at record lows for most of the last 12 years. What happened to change that? Oh—was there a pandemic? Was there a war in Ukraine? There were a couple of things that might just have happened. Do we think that food and power going up are not affected by what is happening in Europe. I find it bizarre that we are just ignoring that.

David Linden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Howell: No, I will not.

Naseem Shah: Will the hon. Gentleman take an intervention?

Paul Howell: Go on, then.

Naseem Shah: When we were in this Chamber voting on free school meals, which the Conservatives decided not to vote for, or on austerity measures that the Conservatives were putting through for our constituents, that was before covid. My constituents were in poverty way before covid happened, way before Ukraine happened, way before all the rest of it happened. We were not in a fiscally right position. The NHS did not have the funding. There was a political choice made by the Conservative party for austerity. It was a political choice, not something we had to do, and our constituents suffered. Libraries, youth centres—all of them were cut on the Conservatives’ watch.

Paul Howell: As someone said earlier, thank you for the short intervention.

David Linden: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the impact of covid and Ukraine, and I do not deny that they have had an impact on the economy, but does he not also think that the Government’s chaotic handling of Brexit contributed to that as well?

Paul Howell: No—that is the easy answer. There have been many challenges with Brexit, but we voted Brexit through in late 2019. Being in a pandemic three months later did not exactly help the process of getting things done.
Coming back to my point, since the pandemic the Government have spent billions to protect businesses. Are Opposition Members saying that we should not have spent that money—that we should not be in debt because of covid and that we should not have supported businesses and people?

Patricia Gibson: The international investment markets have talked about the UK’s suffering more economic hardship than other comparable countries, which they refer to as the “moron premium”. How does the hon. Gentleman respond to that? Are they wrong?

Paul Howell: There are so many people who have so many opinions about the different things that have happened and will put them into different contexts. We need to keep ourselves in context. To quote the numbers, the House of Commons Library estimated that the Government spent between £300 billion and £400 billion on various pandemic-related issues. That is between £4,600 and £6,100 for each individual. That is a tremendous amount of money. Before we had the chance to recover from the pandemic, Russia invaded Ukraine, causing the price of food and so on to explode. The enormous support that the Government have given in response to energy prices is expected to cost £60 billion over six months.
The Labour party are scaremongering that the support will stop in April and everybody is falling off a cliff. Nobody has said it is stopping in April. They have said that the likes of you and I, Mr Deputy Speaker, might not be receiving support—I would quite like to get support, but I do not need it. We need to ensure the money we spend is spent with those who need it, not those who just want it, and achieve that balance, but the immediate reaction on energy support—to provide it as quickly as possible—was wholly appropriate.
When people start to talk about interest rates, the rhetoric we hear from Labour about the £500 increase is selective noise, using a specific comparator of a two-year mortgage that was 1.6% two years ago, was 3.7% before we went into the mini Budget and is now probably close to 5%. The real effect on people is not a £500 difference.

Anna Firth: My hon. Friend is making an important point about interest rates. Does he agree that UK interest rates are down since the mini-Budget? The five-year rate is now 3.3%, compared with 3.5% before the mini-Budget, and the two-year rate is now 3.1%, compared with 3.4% before the mini Budget. Does he agree that, when we talk about long-term management of the UK economy and interest rates, it is only the Conservatives who can be trusted to deliver?

Paul Howell: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. What I find wholly inappropriate is this: we have constituents very worried about what is happening, the way interest rates are rising globally and so on, and what are the Opposition doing? They are scaremongering, making people think it is even worse than it is and that the worst effects are affecting everybody. That is wholly inappropriate and it is making people who are already worried become terrified.
I am sure we all go home and talk to our constituents and our businesses. I have many businesses in Sedgefield, and all the ones I talk to are nothing but grateful for the support this Government have given them to make sure they can pay their energy bills. They are nothing but grateful for the way we introduced the furlough scheme, which put a lot of the cost into the equation.
I personally have every confidence that our Prime Minister and our Chancellor will show us on Thursday that they are compassionate Conservatives, and that they will look after and help most those who need it the most, not just take a broad brush across everything—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) is chuntering from a sedentary position. On the other point that has been raised about severance payments, those payments are statutory, and it is wholly inappropriate to have political intervention on those, just trying to make them a thing. Many people have received them over the years on both sides of the House, and there should therefore not be political interference in that process. It is up to the individual to choose not to take them; if they think it is inappropriate, they can take that decision.

Lisa Nandy: What do you think?

Paul Howell: What do I think? I think it depends on the individual. The hon. Lady has chirped and talked—[Interruption.] Do you want to hear, or do you want to shut up?

Nigel Evans: Order. Hold on.

Paul Howell: My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Nigel Evans: We accept the apology, but, by the way, this is not a chat—this is a debate.

Paul Howell: My apologies. On the particular reference to the Prime Minister getting her severance and being in the job short-term, she was a Minister for many, many years, which drives the severance.
Going back to my final point, I have every confidence that the Chancellor and Prime Minister will do the right thing on Thursday. I look forward to the autumn statement.

Helen Hayes: In my seven and a half years in this place, I have never known a time like this. Our country was already straining and buckling under the weight of 12 long years of austerity, the impact of the covid-19 pandemic, the economic consequences of Brexit and the war in Ukraine. But when people across our country most needed leadership, comfort and meaningful support from their Government, the Government gambled their security on their own  ideological slot machine, inflicting entirely unnecessary additional damage on the economy, instigating a financial crisis and opening a vast, gaping hole in the public finances.
There is another thing I have never known before: the sheer scale and extent of the collective anxiety out there in our communities. That is palpable everywhere I go. People are terrified about how they will meet increased mortgage or rent payments, terrified about how they will afford to pay their bills and terrified about how they will continue to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads this winter. By undermining our economic security so much, this Government have delivered a huge blow not only to our nation’s finances and the health of our economy, but to our nation’s mental health.
What is the response of the Government and Conservative Members? To put the blame everywhere but at their own door. In no other country anywhere in the world did the central bank have to step in overnight to stop a collapse in pension funds

Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and is contrasting effectively the Government’s reckless disregard for the everyday reality of residents across the country. Does she agree that there is particular pressure on many younger people who are currently trying to get on to the housing ladder?

Helen Hayes: It was already so hard for young people in our country to afford to get on to the housing ladder, and it is devastating for so many of them that that challenge has been made even worse.
This Government seek to pretend that the extraordinary and unprecedented situation we face—a £30 billion self-inflicted hole in our public finances—is normal and nothing more than a minor accounting error that they are seeking to rectify before they carry on with business as usual. They seek to normalise the terrible damage they have done.
This is not normal. My constituents do not get to carry on as normal as they struggle to pay their mortgages. My local councils, which, later this week, are likely to face further swingeing budget cuts to services that are already stretched to breaking point, do not get to carry on as normal. Our public services, including our NHS, do not get to carry on as normal. They all have to live with the disastrous consequences of this Government’s ideologically driven mismanagement of our economy. The loss-of-office payments are the salt in the wounds. The previous Chancellor and Prime Minister were reluctant to tax the windfall profits of the energy giants, but happy to take the windfall profits from the disaster they created.
This is UK Parliament Week, and when I visit schools in my constituency, as I did this morning, children ask whether it is right that former Ministers who presided over such a disaster are taking loss-of-office payments. They also ask whether the most senior politician responsible for our nation’s health during a pandemic that saw such catastrophic loss of life should be taking part in a reality TV show while his constituents are left to fend for themselves during the current crisis.
I hope that Government Members will visit schools in their constituencies this week to hear what children in our nation think about their behaviour, which is corrosive to trust and confidence in our politics, widens the gulf between those in power and the communities they represent, and brings shame on this place while our constituents foot the bill. I hope that Government Members will reflect on that as they decide how to vote on the motion.

Gareth Bacon: I rise to reject the arguments put forward by the Opposition. It is a matter of regret that Opposition day debates have abandoned any pretence of being a forensic probing of Government policy and have instead become nothing more than petty attempts for clickbait on social media.

David Linden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gareth Bacon: No. I have great affection for the hon. Gentleman, but I am mindful of Mr Deputy Speaker’s warning about the time because I know that other Members wish to speak. If the hon. Gentleman makes a speech later, he can address my comments.
In George Orwell’s “1984”, people are required during the “Two Minutes Hate” to watch a film depicting enemies of the state and loudly proclaim their hatred for them. The Labour party appears to believe that “1984” was a guidebook and not a warning, because it seems regularly to covet the chance to fabricate similarly misleading narratives, such as that of MPs voting to allow sewage in rivers, which was patently untrue. The volume of hateful correspondence and even threats against Members of this House has risen in recent years. Anecdotally, I gather from colleagues that there seems to be a strong correlation between spikes in abusive messages and Opposition day debates. I will leave the Opposition to reflect on that and on their methods.
I note that in the motion there is no mention at all of the covid pandemic, which caused the greatest contraction of the UK’s economy for 300 years, or of the £400 billion the Government spent on protecting people through the pandemic. Nor is there any mention of the £37 billion of targeted support for those on lower incomes. Nor is there any mention of the war in Ukraine, which has directly led to massive increases in energy prices. The recovery from the pandemic and the war in Ukraine have led to inflationary pressures around the world, which have in turn led to interest rate rises around the world. Again, mysteriously, there is no mention at all of that in the Opposition’s motion.
On what is in the motion, I respectfully point out that ignoring the disastrous consequences of rising energy bills would have been economic mismanagement. Instead, the previous Prime Minister and Chancellor put together a supremely generous support package that safeguarded both businesses and households. The energy price guarantee caps the price per unit of electricity and gas, and was introduced to counteract the looming October price rise, saving each household £700 on average over the winter. Had that not occurred, many families would suffer exorbitant and potentially unaffordable costs.
Similarly, the energy bill relief scheme applies to non-domestic premises so that businesses do not go bust and incur massive job losses across the country, which would have caused destitution for thousands. The previous Prime Minister and Chancellor took action to prevent such situations from occurring in the wake of what are ultimately global surges in energy prices.
It is not ancient history, so let me point out that financially ruining the country and leaving a note that says, “There’s no money left”, as the Labour party did in 2010, is quite literally mismanaging the economy. Thanks to measures taken by this Government, as of yesterday, mortgage rates have begun to fall, and some lenders are offering five-year fixed-term rates at less than 5%.
Lastly, the calls to dock severance pay for departing Ministers are a relatively new phenomenon and an over-personalised cheap shot, which is typical of the Opposition. I am not aware that any Labour Minister was particularly concerned about the matter before certain quarters of the media began discussing it. Indeed, not accepting severance packages was certainly not high on the agenda of departing Labour Ministers throughout the Blair and Brown Administrations, and certainly not when they were booted out of office in 2010. That is underlined by the refusal of the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) to answer both the questions I asked during my earlier intervention. Yet again, it shows that the Opposition only follow and do not lead. The motion is simply game playing. It is entirely without merit and should not be supported.

Paulette Hamilton: The Conservatives crashed our economy, and mortgage rates have skyrocketed as a result of their mismanagement throughout this crisis. Under the Tories, working families’ pay is falling by £1,300 on average, and everyone is feeling the hit from the rising cost of energy, food and fuel. On top of that, people across the west midlands, such as my Erdington, Kingstanding and Castle Vale constituents, are facing an average mortgage increase of £379 a month.
One of my constituents—a nurse and single mother—contacted me as she is worried about the effect that the cost of living crisis is having on her family. She is in debt, struggles to pay for her children’s school dinners, and often misses meals so that they can eat, despite being pregnant with her third child. Such stories are not unique to Erdington. Many people are struggling to make ends meet through tough economic times that have been made worse by Tory incompetence.
How do the Government expect people to fork out £400 more every month to pay for the rising cost of their mortgages? Where do the Tories think that people such as my constituents should make savings—by turning their heating off or skipping meals? The Prime Minister promised that his Government would be compassionate and that supporting the most vulnerable would be his top priority. I wonder who is feeling the effects of that compassion. Working people in my constituency certainly are not.
Young people in Birmingham, who have scrimped and saved to get on the property ladder, have been thrown under a bus in the blink of an eye, leaving them  trapped in the broken rental market. The crisis was avoidable. More than a decade of Tory chaos has meant that 800,000 fewer households under the age of 45 own their own homes now than when the Conservatives came to power in 2010. Just over 32,000 households in Birmingham are due to come off two or five-year fixed-term mortgages to refinance their deals in April 2023. They face an eye-watering jump in repayments as a result of the Tory premium they will now have to pay. That does not include the one in five homeowners on variable deals, who are seeing their bills rise almost immediately.
We must be absolutely clear: this is a Tory crisis, made in Downing Street, but working people are footing the bill and they demand answers about who will clean up the mess.

Anthony Browne: I echo at the outset the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities: mistakes were made. The Prime Minister said the same thing. The most important thing is that we fix them rapidly. That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition: we do not repeat mistakes and go on, but fix them amazingly quickly. We had a quick change of leader and of Chancellor, but most of the measures that the Opposition have been discussing were never implemented. They were reversed before implementation. We await the autumn statement on Thursday to see all the measures that the Government will take to ensure that we live within our means and get the economy on the right path again.
Various Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the different crises that we have faced since the 2019 election. I sit on the Treasury Committee, and we have been following closely the economic response first to the pandemic and then to the war in Ukraine. There is no doubt that the pandemic was an extraordinary economic shock, not just to the UK, but to economies around the world. However, our response was by and large incredibly generous and ensured that the economic reaction was less severe than it would otherwise have been. Likewise, with Ukraine, there has been a huge amount of support for households in the cost of living crisis. Various Members have mentioned the energy price fix. We are also introducing a windfall tax, and there are too many forms of support for households to mention. Most people understand that the Government’s response to those two major, once-in-a-century crises, which happened back to back, has been extraordinary. It would have been amazing if no mistakes had been made. Some were made and we have put them right.
We all know what is happening here. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) said, it is political game playing. The Opposition are looking to the next general election and trying to burnish their economic reputation. They know that the Conservatives are trusted most on the economy and Labour is not. I do not blame the Opposition—they are trying to turn that around and say, “You can trust us with the economy; you can’t trust the Conservative party.”
It is worth reminding people of the Labour party’s economic record and why a lot of my older constituents vote Conservative. They have lived through previous  Labour Governments. I will go back not to the Labour Chancellor going cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund in 1967 or to the winter of discontent, which I remember, when the rubbish was piling up in the streets, but to the last Labour Government of 1997 to 2010. I was economics correspondent at the BBC when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown came in and at the time of their emergency first Budget. That election campaign was largely fought on unemployment, but the economic scenario in 1997 was golden. For years afterwards, people said that Gordon Brown was the lucky Chancellor. He inherited extraordinarily benign economic conditions. I gave up being an economics journalist because there was nothing to write about. We had budget surpluses and flat inflation, but it was all inherited from the previous Conservative Government and the result of the reforms they introduced. However, that did not last.
It was mentioned earlier that every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came in. The same is true of the 1997 to 2010 Labour Government.

Matt Rodda: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for going back to the 1990s. It is fascinating to hear him recall that long period of higher growth compared with when the Conservatives have been in power. Does he want to reflect on that and the difference between the two parties’ management of the economy?

Anthony Browne: I will come to that. The economy is like a tanker and it generally moves slowly. In 1997, the Labour Government inherited the results of the all the reforms that Norman Lamont, Ken Clarke and others introduced under John Major. However, that did not last.
The Labour campaign in 1997 was fought on employment and I particularly remember Gordon Brown’s rousing speeches about workless households—households where no one had ever worked. That was Labour’s big attack on the Conservatives’ economic incompetence. What happened to workless households under the last Labour Government? They did not decrease—they doubled. There were twice as many workless households when Labour lost power in 2010 than when they came in in 1997.
Another big campaign theme for Labour in 1997 was youth unemployment. One would have thought that, after 13 years of Labour Government, youth unemployment would come down. What happened to youth unemployment? It went up by almost half; 939,000—almost a million—people aged between 16 and 24 were out of work in 2010. That is the legacy of Labour’s economic policies.
We have discussed filling black holes and living within our means. I am a fiscal conservative and I believe that all countries and Governments need to live within their means. Labour inherited a golden economic scenario, but what happened in the end? As I said earlier, the last Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury left a note for his successor on his desk. We all know what it said: “Dear Chief Secretary, I am afraid we have run out of money.” As Margaret Thatcher famously said, the trouble with socialism is that
“you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
It is not surprising that the Opposition are trying to burnish their economic credentials and point to any  mistakes that the Conservatives have made. We are putting those mistakes right and the Labour party would not do that.
Much of the debate has been about home ownership rates. I am a huge supporter of increasing home ownership. I set up the HomeOwners Alliance to campaign for people to own their homes. Some 86% of people want to own their homes. The Labour party has traditionally and historically not been a huge supporter of homeowners, preferring to focus on social housing. That is important, but so is owning your own home. Most people who live in social housing want to own their home. I welcome the Labour’s conversion and attempt to position itself as the party of home ownership—good luck to them. However, what happened to home ownership under the last Labour Government?
Generally, from the 1910s and 1920s onwards, home ownership increased under different Governments—even some early Labour Governments. It went up and up under Margaret Thatcher. What happened when Labour was elected in 1997? It took about two years for home ownership rates to start collapsing, and that continued throughout Labour’s last term. The Labour party was not the party of the homeowner; it was the party of falling home ownership rates. When we were elected in 2010, it took a couple of years to turn things around—a bit like a tanker—but home ownership rates started to increase again through all our measures to help homeowners. I totally support the Government’s ambition to build homes and help home ownership increase.

Matt Rodda: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time, but I would like to point out that, as I understand the figures, home ownership is actually declining at the moment. Certainly in my constituency, it has been for some time, and my predecessor, who was a Conservative, wrote an article in The Economist about it. The hon. Gentleman might want to reflect on the difference between what the Conservative Government are claiming and what has actually happened.

Anthony Browne: I do not know what is happening in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but nationally—I can provide him with a graph later—home ownership rates began going down a bit after 2010, but then they started going up again. They have had a bit of a wobble, but there have been a lot of economic things happening.
Given our economic track record versus the Labour party’s rhetoric, many constituents say to me when I knock on their doors and they are worried about the pandemic, the cost of living crisis and Ukraine, “Just imagine what would have happened if the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn had won in 2019.” Am I allowed to say that?

Nigel Evans: No—first, you are not allowed to mention a sitting Member by name, and secondly, I gave an advisory time limit of eight minutes, so if the hon. Member could start to focus, it would be appreciated.

Anthony Browne: They say, “Just imagine what would have happened if Labour had won and the Labour party had been in power during the war in Ukraine and the pandemic.” It does not bear thinking about.
In my last few seconds, I will talk about the motion on severance pay. I am neither defending nor supporting it, but it is set out in legislation. That legislation has been there for 30 years, and the Labour party did not oppose or change that legislation when it was in power. It is up to the individuals whether they take it or not. I just point out that after the last Labour Government in 2010, Labour Ministers took £1 million-worth of severance pay.

David Linden: It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne). I very much enjoyed his history lesson about when Gordon Brown came into power in 1997, when I was in primary 2. What relevance that has to today’s debate and the mortgage rates that are being experienced by my constituents, I am not quite sure. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) was unable to take my intervention. I think he is right to express some concern about the tone of Opposition day debates. One of the questions I was going to ask him was how he thinks the Scottish Conservatives conduct their Opposition day debates in the Scottish Parliament and whether he could tell the Chamber how different they are. He seems to be shrugging his shoulders, so I am not sure he is aware how the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) conducts himself in the Scottish Parliament; perhaps he is going to explain.

Gareth Bacon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I must confess that I do not spend a lot of time watching the Scottish Parliament, because I am often here, so I cannot answer his question. I would be happy to have a drink with him, and we could discuss it then.

David Linden: That is very helpful, and over the course of that drink I will explain to the hon. Gentleman that the behaviour of his colleagues in the Scottish Conservative party during Opposition day debates is quite something. It reminds me of that biblical verse about removing the log from your eye before removing the speck from your neighbour’s.
There are two parts to the motion before the House. The first aspect of it is how interest rates are rising. A theme has been developed throughout the course of the debate that that is to do with what has happened in Ukraine and the covid pandemic. I would not dispute for a minute that what has happened in Ukraine has had an impact on the economy and that the global pandemic has had an impact on the economy. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), there is a third aspect that has also had an impact on the economy, and that is the nature of the Brexit that we took. I think most people and most respected economists would argue that Brexit has had an impact on the economy, and the cherry-picking—to use the Minister’s term—that the hon. Member for Sedgefield was indulging himself in, to try to ignore the fact that Brexit has had an impact on the economy, does a disservice to the debate.

Drew Hendry: My hon. Friend is making a very important point. People are struggling to make ends meet just now because of a number of factors. A key one is food price inflation, which has rocketed due to  the costs of Brexit. We have seen prices double, and the price of basic foodstuffs has gone up 60%. It is a price that people cannot afford to pay and should not have been forced into paying, especially in Scotland, where we voted resolutely against Brexit.

David Linden: Absolutely. I do not intend to rehash the debate on Brexit, though I am tempted to do so and feel that I would be on pretty strong political ground, but my hon. Friend is right to talk about the impact on food prices. In his constituency in particular, it is not just food prices that are crippling people; it is the fact that many of his constituents are off the gas grid. The paltry £100 that has been offered by the UK Government is not acceptable, as I think my hon. Friend is about to explain.

Drew Hendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way once again; he is being very generous with his time. This is another vital point. The energy price guarantee does nothing for those people who are already paying an average bill of £4,000, which might rise to £6,000 a year, and for those off the gas grid, the £100 put forward by the UK Government has been described as “derisory” by Energy Action Scotland. These costs are crippling for people in constituencies like mine, where many people are off the gas grid.

David Linden: Absolutely. I am conscious that the motion focuses specifically on mortgages, so I will move away from energy and deal with the issue of mortgage interest rates.
The general theme that Government Back Benchers are developing today is that Ukraine is to blame, and covid is to blame, and that is why interest rates have risen. I would not want to indulge in a whole lecture on the Phillips curve—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office tempts me. A number of people, including me, would question whether the Bank of England holding interest rates at the historic low levels they have been at relative to unemployment is something that merits a debate. Whether today’s Opposition day debate is that, I am not sure.
There has been a rewriting of history in the course of the debate. A number of Members seem to be suggesting that this is the fault of covid and Ukraine, and the mini-Budget had nothing to do with it. The reality is that the mini-Budget did spook the markets. The UK was put on a watch list by the IMF. Members have been falling over themselves with excitement to say, “What would have happened if the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) had become Prime Minister?” I am not sure that even they would have imagined that under the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership the UK would have been put on an IMF watch list, as it was after the antics of the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng).
Over the course of the debate, Members have said that this is to do with covid and Ukraine, but the Scottish housing market review for quarter 3 of 2022—which we must bear in mind is written not by politicians but by economists and civil servants—says:
“There was a substantial increase in the number of high LTV products offered by mortgage lenders after the Covid-19 pandemic, with the number of 95% LTV mortgages products increasing from 14 in September 2020 to 274 in September 2022. However,  after the UKG Plan for Growth/mini-budget on 23 September 2022, the residential mortgage market saw a dramatic fall in the number of deals available to new borrowers over the month. The total number of residential mortgage products dropped to 2,258 in October.”
I am not going to do a “woe is me”, as a highly paid politician, but I am one of the people whose house was on the market at the time of the mini-Budget. We had an offer in, and then the mortgage product was pulled, so the sale of the house has fallen through. I am also one of the people who took sound financial advice and was told to fix my mortgage rate for two years, because most of us expected—quite rightly—that, given relative levels of unemployment, mortgage rates would start to rise. That is why a number of people fixed for two years. As I say, I am not saying “woe is me”, because I am a politician, and I am very highly paid; I am far too overpaid, in my view. However, as a result of the changes to mortgages that happened in an accelerated fashion as a result of the mini-Budget, the vast majority of my constituents will now have to go back to the position of many of my constituents in the 1980s—the people who live in the Mount Vernon area—who saw interest rates of 14% and 15%. We are not there yet, but I would not be surprised if we ended up in that place, because this is not going to be fixed overnight. The harsh reality for the Government is that, yes, interest rates have been rising and should have been rising, but everybody in the Chamber knows that the mini-Budget spooked the markets, and there was a run on the pound and a run on pensions. That was a direct result of the actions of Government Ministers.
As for the second part of the motion, most of us would accept that if somebody started working at, for example, Tesco on a Monday, and they were in charge of the frozen foods aisle, and in the three days that they were in work, they did not turn on the freezers and all of that supermarket’s stock was lost, the chances are that they would be given their jotters—they would be sent home from work, and they would be fired. The Government have conducted some sort of economic experiment based on the Thatcherite economics of the gruesome twosome of the right hon. Members for Spelthorne and for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). They have crashed the economy—the equivalent of ruining all the frozen goods—and they have got off scot free. The thing that really sticks in the craw of Members of this House and, most importantly, of people outside the House is the fact that not only have they walked away and left absolute economic carnage behind them but they have been given a severance payment.
Far too often, watching Conservative Members and Opposition Members fighting with each other is like watching two bald men fight over a comb. Conservative Members say, “Oh well, in 2010, you took this much by way of ministerial several payments,” but we are not living in normal times: it has been calculated that a Minister resigned every four days over the last year. The Conservative party has the audacity to lecture people about sound money and sound government when, at one point, Ministers were resigning on average every four days as a result of complete incompetence. Some of the people we saw at the Dispatch Box, particularly over the summer, are folk I never dreamed would have a red box—people who I would not put in charge of tying shoelaces—but they are all walking away with ministerial bungs.
As far as I am concerned, there is a legitimate debate to be had by the Government and His Majesty’s Opposition about severance payments. As luck would have it, last month, I introduced a private Member’s Bill, the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries (Amendment) Bill, which seeks only to bring Ministers into line with mere mortals outside of this House. If someone has not been with their employer for two years, they are not subject to a statutory redundancy payment.
We are in a ridiculous situation. Granted, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), who was Education Secretary for, I think, a day, did the right thing and said, “I’m not taking my severance payment,” but under the current legislation, Ministers and Secretaries of State who are in post for literally hours or a couple of days are entitled to vast severance payments. That needs to change. We can have the what-aboutery in the Chamber about Labour or Conservative Ministers taking payments, but for goodness’ sake, let us fix the legislation to ensure that Government Ministers are subject to the exact same regulations as those we in this place seek to represent.

Drew Hendry: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman makes his intervention, I want to say that the advisory time limit is eight minutes.

Drew Hendry: I will be brief. My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Earlier, he reflected on the cost for people and their households. How does he think that the vast payments that Ministers are walking away with after a matter of days resonate with people who are struggling to pay their bills?

David Linden: I am always keen to use the local Glasgow vernacular, but I am mindful that if I used it to explain how angry my constituents are, I would probably get chucked out of the House for unparliamentary language. That gives my hon. Friend a flavour of how my constituents feel about the grotesque sight of failed Government Ministers coming into the Chamber, playing with their little Tufton Street economic strategies and using my constituents, who are incredibly economically vulnerable, as lab rats, then walking away with thousands of pounds in a pay-off. That is absolutely outrageous and most of my constituents would not stand for it.
The motion before the House talks about severance payments. In reality, I would like to amend the legislation. Given the disgusting behaviour that we have seen from Conservative Governments, however, I would be keener to see Scotland severed from this Union altogether.

Gerald Jones: I rise to speak in support of the motion in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I will take the opportunity to raise some concerns on behalf of my constituents.
It is clear that the events of 23 September have had a far-reaching impact and that the damage done by the former Chancellor and Prime Minister will continue to cause hardship for some time to come. We know that the Government did not seek the benefit of an OBR  impact assessment, so they had no clue about how the decisions they took would cause damage. It is incredible, extremely careless and quite frankly inexcusable of them to have allowed a Budget—financial statement, mini-Budget or whatever they wanted to call it—to be set out in that way.
Families in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, and millions across the country, will continue to pay the price for the Government’s mismanagement of the economy. Recently, I was contacted by a mortgage adviser in my constituency who told me that they saw first hand, on the frontline, the effect of the Government’s management of the economy. Because of the recklessness of key people in Government, mortgage rates and terms changed by the day, and it was almost impossible to predict what was going to happen next or to try to guide clients on the best path to keep repayments at an affordable level.
The advisor did three re-mortgages for three families that totalled £330,000—lots of threes there—in the weeks following the mini-Budget and the monthly payments went up by around £550 to £600 a month. When that is added to the rising costs of gas and electric, that means almost £300 per household per month that those families will now not spend in the local economy.
One example highlighted a mortgage that was set in May this year and was due to complete shortly after the mini-Budget. In late September, the same £210,000 mortgage over 30 years would be a staggering £350 a month more. The adviser offered a few examples of what they felt was a very serious situation for the economy. These mortgage rates and rising utility costs, coupled with the cost of food and fuel, will cause great hardship for many.
Another mortgage adviser based in my constituency told me that they are also seeing first hand the hardship that the so-called growth plan caused. They said that the mini-Budget had already caused financial hardship, because their clients across the spectrum—single mothers, working professionals and retirees—are all feeling the burden of the cost of living crisis and that has been exacerbated by rising mortgage interest rates. They said:
“Having to sit in front of a client and tell them their mortgage has risen hundreds of pounds is quite frankly heartbreaking, especially at a time when finances are stretched already. Unfortunately given the lack of forecasts and figures from the OBR which would normally accompany a budget, I am finding it difficult to ease our clients’ concerns about the bigger picture and what, if any, plan the government has to rectify this situation.”
The trickle-down approach does not work. Unfunded tax cuts are reckless, given that they put the Government and the central Bank at loggerheads over control of inflation. People in my constituency and across the country want some stability and a more sensible approach, but they are not getting that with the constant chaos from the Government.
Of course, we know that these extremely trying financial uncertainties will also have a huge impact on people’s mental health and wellbeing. People coming off a two-year, three-year or five-year fixed mortgage rate in April 2023 could well face additional monthly mortgage payments of more than £500 alongside an eye-watering increase in energy bills. How does the Minister expect hard-working families to cope with that increase?
It is clear for all to see that this is the Government’s crisis: made in Downing Street, paid for by working people. They crashed the economy through enormous  unfunded tax cuts, leaving people worried as they face higher mortgages and soaring costs. They have damaged the UK’s reputation on the global stage and left us all worse off. They reversed most of the mini-Budget, U-turned on most things, and abandoned their discredited and dangerous approach, but the damage was already done. The British people will now pay more in borrowing costs or through further Tory cuts to vital public services.
The average repayments for a first-time buyer with a two-year fixed-term mortgage have grown by £580 a month in the last year. Many prospective first-time buyers have had to abandon their hopes of getting on the housing ladder altogether, as we have heard.

Taiwo Owatemi: My hon. Friend is making an important point. Many constituents have written to me with their concerns about being able to get on the housing ladder and get a mortgage, due to the fact that the Government damaged mortgage rates. Does he agree that the Government’s economic vandalism has had a significant impact on first-time buyers and their ability to get on the property ladder?

Gerald Jones: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; we saw many dreams shattered across the country. That crisis was made in Downing Street and paid for by families in her constituency, my constituency and many others across the country.
We now need calm and market certainty. Labour would put a windfall tax on energy companies’ excess profits, so that we do not have to borrow more than we need, and would abolish non-dom status, which would raise billions for the public purse. People who make Britain their home should pay their fair share. Crucially, we would also respect the independent institutions that are designed to provide stability for the British economy.
I am seeking answers for my constituents. One question from my constituents has come up a number of times this afternoon, so perhaps the Minister can explain why the former Prime Minister and Chancellor, who were in office for only a brief period of weeks and who crashed the economy in that time, should get to keep a severance payment worth thousands of pounds. Their actions led directly to hard-working families having to pay thousands more every year for their mortgages.
In the Minister’s opening speech, she said that this country was not unique in facing financial challenges. That may be the case, but this country is unique in having a governing party that put in place a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who were clearly unfit for office and who ended up crashing the economy, which will cause financial hardship for millions of families for many years to come. I support the motion and urge Members on both sides of the House to do the same.

Helen Morgan: I draw the House’s attention to my declaration of interests and the fact that I am a residential landlord.
We have discussed the cost of living on many occasions in this place, but as the fallout of the disastrous mini-Budget becomes apparent, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the impact on my constituents of soaring mortgage rates. I was disappointed to hear the Minister repeatedly  speak of the need to restore credibility and restore stability without really acknowledging the cause of that instability and the lack of such credibility in the first place.
The Bank of England has said that a typical mortgage holder will see annual repayments rise by just under £3,000 over the next year, but according to the Resolution Foundation, at least £500 of that is purely due to the mini-Budget. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has estimated that an extra 120,000 households in the UK—about 400,000 people—will be plunged into poverty when their current mortgage deal ends, and about 750,000 households or 2.4 million people with a mortgage are already in poverty. That is because, although interest rates have been historically low, there is a crisis of housing affordability. Housing now accounts for such a big proportion of people’s monthly income that they cannot afford any additional shock, whether that is in energy prices, food, council tax or, indeed, their mortgage interest payment.
It is not only mortgage holders who are affected. Those in private rented accommodation, who are already paying even more of their monthly income in housing costs than mortgage holders, are likely to be impacted too, as those who cannot pay their mortgage are forced to leave their homes and increase competition for rented homes, and buy to let landlords either leave the market or pass on higher mortgage costs to their tenants. Rented accommodation is already impossible to find in many parts of the country. I have a constituent who was asked to put down a deposit on a flat in a small market town in North Shropshire before he had seen it, and when he went to pick up the keys, he found a dilapidated, uninhabitable property. Local employers report being unable to attract workers because of the shortage of housing available to them, so any crisis in housing market will send shock waves throughout the economy and worsen this difficult situation.
That is on top of the extreme pressure that household finances are already under. People are paying twice as much to heat their homes this winter as they did last year, and food prices are soaring. The impact is even worse for people living in rural constituencies such as North Shropshire, where studies show that even before this intervention everything cost more than for their urban counterparts—whether that is food, housing, council tax, transport or fuel—alongside the fact that average wages in rural areas are significantly lower. Thus far, we have seen very little done to help those in rural areas, but over the weekend we have seen threats to cut the essential public services that are already thin on the ground here, threats to cut the pensions and benefits of those who are struggling to make ends meet, and threats to raise taxes for those working hard just to keep their heads above water.
So imagine such people’s fury at the fact that the Conservative turmoil has led to huge numbers of former Ministers being able to claim payouts, with the two reshuffles carried out since July potentially costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds. Ministers who were sacked just months ago but have since been reappointed are still able to claim thousands of pounds each in redundancy pay, as long as they have been out of a ministerial post for only three weeks. For example, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), who was sacked by the right hon. Member for  South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) in September but was later reappointed as Justice Secretary, would be eligible to receive £16,876, despite having been out of a ministerial job for seven weeks. To put that in context, that would be enough to rent a two-bedroom flat for more than two years in Whitchurch in my constituency. Everyone understands the need for legislation to provide severance payments, but as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) pointed out, surely this legislation was not intended for this situation of chronic instability. After all, these Ministers have continued to draw their basic MP’s salary, at almost four times the national average, throughout the period of not having their ministerial role.

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Lady is making a very fair point. Does she think one thing that could help to ameliorate this situation is if we had a rule, as we have for many public sector employees, that if someone receives a redundancy payment but goes back into a job that is similar to or the same as the previous job, they do not receive the redundancy payment?

Helen Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I think that is a sensible suggestion. However, we also need to reflect on the fact that, in the case of the former Prime Minister and Chancellor, they did not leave their jobs through redundancy; they were sacked for incompetence, and that would not normally lead to a severance payment. There is no question but that this chaotic political situation has caused farcical revolving-door bonuses, and I believe this money should be returned to the Treasury to help plug the hole for families struggling with the cost of living or, indeed, to help plug the hole created by the disastrous Budget.
I urge the Government to listen to the proposals made by the Liberal Democrats, because over the summer we have been leading the way on action to tackle the cost of living crisis. We were the first to call for a windfall tax on the record profits of the oil and gas giants, and we were the first to call for a freeze on energy bills over the summer. On top of this, we are the first to call for the Government to provide extra targeted support for mortgage holders on universal credit. We have proposed a mortgage protection fund, paid for by reversing the unfair and unnecessary tax cuts for the big banks, and we would like these measures targeted at those most at risk of repossession. We are also calling on the Government to act urgently to protect renters, to ban no fault evictions and to stop landlords threatening to evict current tenants just so they can hike their rents. We want to produce longer tenancies of three years or more, with fair annual rent increases built in, to give renters the certainty they need.
When those renters see their position become even less secure and those with mortgages struggle to make ends meet or even risk losing their homes, they must be sickened to see the potential scale of Government severance payments. When they see the Chancellor appear on TV to warm them up for cuts and tax rises, I imagine they would not expect the Ministers who have caused this situation with their terrible misjudgment to be benefiting financially. I ask the Minister to confirm whether those Ministers entitled to payments who were subsequently  reappointed have accepted their initial severance payouts. Have the ex-Prime Minister, Cabinet members and the Chancellor who caused this situation waived their severance payments, and will the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk, having severely damaged the UK economic outlook, draw expenses of in excess of £100,000 a year while my constituents lie awake at night worrying how they are going to make ends meet?

Justin Madders: A roof over your head, security at home and the peace of mind of knowing that at the end of the day you have somewhere to return to are the cornerstones of a happy and prosperous society. As we have heard, home ownership is the goal for so many of the constituents we represent and of those I speak with, and for years many have benefited from low and stable interest rates. Indeed, a whole generation of homeowners have taken their first steps on to the housing market knowing nothing other than that situation, which is one reason why I fear this current crisis is going to hit people harder and be more damaging than the previous interest rate rises we have seen.
The most immediate effect will be on those who do not actually own their home. There are many significant challenges people face when they are trying to get on the housing ladder, and the last few months have seen that ladder not just pulled up, but yanked away from hundreds of first-time buyers in my constituency. That has also placed many constituents who are already on the ladder in a position where their mortgages are no longer affordable.
Let us be clear: all of this was totally avoidable. It is the Conservative Government who have created this situation with their desire to turn the UK into a deranged economic experiment. This has spooked the markets, and while the main protagonists of this folly have gone, the Government remain, but it is the hard-working people who will pay the cost of this stupidity for many years to come.
I have spoken to one constituent whose repayment mortgage was unfortunately being negotiated right at the time the Government began their experiment. His family now face an increase in their mortgage repayments of £410 every single month. That is the sort of eye-watering, almost overnight increase in costs that all but the most well-off in society will have no chance of meeting. What of course makes this worse is that this comes on top of a year in which just about every expense a household will face has also gone up—council tax, energy bills and, of course, the weekly shop. Everyday costs have shot up well beyond any increases in wages, and those factors on their own are more than enough to put most households in trouble, but if we factor in mortgage increases of that degree on top, we reach a position that is clearly unsustainable.
We hear those seeking to absolve themselves of blame for this mess pointing to a pre-existing trend of increasing mortgage rates. While it is not disputed that there was indeed a slight upward trend before the kami-Kwasi Budget, there is no doubt that it is the Government’s reckless actions that have put rocket boosters under that trend, with the result that so much happened so quickly overnight. When the then Prime Minister and Chancellor decided to push ahead with their uncosted tax cuts, did they think for even a minute about what  that might mean for people like my constituent who, over the next five years, will be paying an extra £25,000 on their mortgage? Of course they did not think about that; this Budget was not about my constituents’ interests or the interests of the vast majority of people in this country. And now my constituent asks:
“Can you please find out how the Conservative Government and their Prime Minister intend to fix an issue they created?”
Many of us would like to know the answer to that question, and if any who were in Cabinet at the time of that Budget but have since left would like to donate some of their severance payments to my constituent to help pay his increased mortgage costs, I am sure he would be grateful.
On severance payments, this Government have been doing their best to stop ordinary people from obtaining compensation when they lose their job, for example by reducing the number of people who can claim unfair dismissal. We should contrast that with the absolute bonanza of severance payments for departing Ministers. They do not have to work for two years somewhere before they can claim a redundancy payment or have the right to claim unfair dismissal; they get it from day one—no matter how badly they behave and what rules they break, they get those payments. Those are not the rules everyone else has to adhere to; that is indefensible.
Let us go through the catalogue of chaos that has become the hallmark of this Government. We have had four Chancellors in four months, and five Home Secretaries in three years—although two of those were, of course, the same person after they served a massive six days on the Back Benches in penance—and we have had five Education Secretaries in as many months. In total, we have had over 70 Ministers depart since July at a staggering cost to the taxpayer of over £700,000. That is not only a sign of a dysfunctional Government; we will be told on Thursday that we are all going to have to pay more tax and that public services funding must be cut, so it is an absolute disgrace that these payments have lined the pockets of people who had only been in the job two minutes—people who have had to resign because of things which, in many cases, if they did them in the real world, would mean they would not get a penny in compensation.
Another constituent, who was in the process of moving house at the time of the Budget, was advised that the products from their current lender had been removed entirely, preventing them from porting their mortgage; and, because the number of other products that were on offer was slashed to around 10% of what had been available the week before, they faced weeks of unnecessary anxiety. While they were eventually able to secure a mortgage, it has come at a cost of around £200 a month more than would have been the case had they completed on their mortgage only a week earlier. One might say that was unlucky timing; I would say it is unforgivable incompetence.
To provide some context, at the beginning of covid, when the world came to a halt, 462 financial products were removed from the market. When this mini-Budget came out some 935 mortgage products were withdrawn in just one day. On that measure at least, the Government have done more economic damage with their Budget than a global pandemic. Conservative Members should reflect on that, and have a sense of shame that it has come to this.

Patricia Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the £65 billion used to shore up pension funds following the mini-Budget—£1,000 for every man, woman and child in the UK—is also a testament to the incompetence of this Government?

Justin Madders: Indeed; we are all the poorer for this folly and we will all be paying the price for many years to come. And where was the Prime Minister during all this? He did not say a word; I did not hear anything from him about why this was wrong. He kept silent and kept his cards close, playing the game, waiting for the opportunity to strike. But now it is his responsibility to clear this mess up and he had better do that.
While the markets have now begun to stabilise a little, the damage has already been done for many, with those coming off fixed-rate mortgages facing payment increases of five to seven times their current deal and some being shut out of the housing market entirely. Anyone on a fixed rate, and that is many of us, will be looking ahead in despair and fear over the next 12 to 18 months at what their mortgage payments will be. Martin Lewis has warned about a ticking timebomb; it is indeed a timebomb and, worse still, this did not need to happen at all.
The impact is not solely on those with mortgages. In my constituency, the pressure on the private rental sector is extremely high, which has already contributed to increasing rents. It is now impossible to secure a three-bed family property for less than £900 a month, which is about 50% of the average income in the constituency. I am already hearing from landlords who cannot afford to continue to rent out their properties without drastically hiking the rents, something many of them know is simply not realistic. They are therefore selling their properties, which will reduce the number of available properties in the private sector and push up rents again. Other landlords are now considering issuing section 21 notices to their tenants, because they know that if they relet the tenancies they can get 20% to 30% extra on the rents; that will push yet more people into homelessness.
Finally I want to say a few words about a group who, sadly, know only too well the impact of high mortgage rates: mortgage prisoners who have been trapped on standard variable rates for years. A constituent of mine is facing the 14th year on such a rate, and in October his mortgage increased once again by £100 a month. In 2021, he was on a fixed rate of 4.54%, double the average two-year fixed rate deal available at the time. Through no fault of his own, my constituent is limited in the mortgage products he can access and while the amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill would have capped mortgage prisoners’ SVRs and ensured access to fixed-rate deals under certain circumstances, the Government chose to vote that down. The measures introduced to provide switching options were found to have a limited effect by the Financial Conduct Authority, and with the contraction of mortgage products, hope for mortgage prisoners is now at an all-time low. They have experienced for years the issues that are now widespread in society, leading to frustration from many that their plight was met with little coverage or understanding when it could have been addressed and mortgage rates were historically low. I recognise those frustrations.
The Government also must ensure that any measures cover not just mortgage prisoners but other people who are trapped in their homes. Many leaseholders with unsafe cladding or other fire defects, and those with egregious ground rent clauses that make the properties unsellable, will see their costs increase due to interest rates going up, but they will not even have the choice of being able to sell their properties because a lack of Government regulation has let them down by leaving them in a home that they do not really own but they cannot leave. That is a wrong that it is taking far too long to put right.

Beth Winter: I rise to speak in support of the motion on the management of the economy. The mismanagement of the economy by the Conservative party and the inaction on runaway inflation and profiteering has meant that millions of people are struggling with the impacts of inflation on their household incomes. The Bank of England decision to raise interest rates, the biggest rise since 1989, is going to hit mortgage and private rental costs, with devastating impacts on so many people and communities, including mine. The rise will have an immediate effect on over 2 million people on a variable rate mortgage, and while more than 6 million on fixed-rate mortgages may be currently insulated, when their deal expires in the coming weeks and months they will be paying £500 more per month on average. Recent analysis from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reveals that nearly 2.5 million people with a mortgage are already in poverty. It also found an additional 400,000 people will be pulled into poverty over the coming year.
Even before the rate rise, the housing system was broken. Shelter has done a lot of research, and it shows that one in three adults in Britain are affected by what it calls housing’s “national emergency”, an apt description of the current situation in the housing sector. We have a severe shortage of affordable, accessible, habitable, safe and secure housing. Having worked for many years in the housing and homelessness service, including with Julian Trust night shelter in St Pauls in Bristol, Cyrenians in Bristol and then Shelter Cymru for a number of years, I have seen at first-hand the pain and suffering of people in desperate housing need—and it can affect anyone, including people sitting here in this Chamber today.
I recently held an appreciation event in my constituency office in Cynon Valley for the housing providers, including Llamau, Hafal and the local authority. They are absolutely terrified about the current situation in housing and the cost of living emergency.
One of the few benefits of frequently speaking last in debates in the Chamber is that I can listen intently to all the contributions. I want to take the opportunity to set the record straight on the current situation and where blame lies. The blame for the current economic crisis and the cost of living catastrophe lies solely with the Tory Government and their economic and ideological approach. While others were speaking, I was looking at some figures. The Office for National Statistics said that, by 2020, almost half the wealth in the United Kingdom was concentrated in the hands of the top  10% of households, while the bottom 50% had only 9%. It has been estimated that the utility companies will make in excess of £170 billion in the next two years, and bankers’ bonuses are absolutely extortionate. We are the fifth richest nation and yet we have some of the highest levels of inequality in the world. Shameful, it is. More than 330,000 deaths have been directly attributed to the austerity policies of the Tory Government. The eminent Professor Sir Michael Marmot recently called the impact of the cost of living catastrophe a “humanitarian crisis” that will lead to thousands more deaths. That is the reality of the situation that we are experiencing.
I return to the specifics of the motion. Housing is and must be regarded as a fundamental right. In Wales, the Welsh Government are trying to do things differently by reducing short-term evictions, and they have a commitment to end homelessness. However, the Welsh Government and other devolved nations and regions throughout the United Kingdom are constrained by the fact that the purse strings rest here in Westminster. More must be done by the UK Government. We need a mass-building programme for affordable, appropriate and climate-proofed housing. The Government must provide a fair, needs-based funding settlement to Wales and the devolved nations. The homelessness charity Crisis has called for an increase in housing benefits and for the Tory party’s commitment to end no-fault evictions to be honoured. London Renters Union is calling for a day of action to freeze rents and link local housing allowance to market rates. We must extend financial support for people struggling with mortgage payments.
Alongside increasing the supply of genuinely affordable housing and better support for those on low incomes, we must see: a strengthening of the social security system; social security benefits increasing in line with inflation; a continued commitment to increase the national living wage; inflation-proofed increases in wages; and employment rights protected and, indeed, improved. We should be introducing windfall taxes and a wealth tax. Tax Justice UK has estimated that £37 billion could be raised by introducing a wealth tax.
The Government are to blame and are allowing the Bank of England, through its independence, to hit living standards as it seeks to tackle inflation. I pose this question before the autumn statement: should the Bank be required in future to take account of the impact of its decisions on real incomes and on living standards measurements?

Nigel Evans: Order. The wind-ups are starting unusually early—there are reasons for that—so, before I call the Front Benchers, I will say that, whatever the agreed time limits were for wind-ups, you can both go longer, if you so wish.

Sarah Owen: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am proud to respond to the debate on behalf of Labour. Despite what Government Members may say, this is an important debate. Why? Because it reflects the discussions being had around every kitchen table by parents with hushed voices behind closed doors so as not to worry their children. It is the sinking feeling that people are getting every time another bill comes through their letterbox. As we have heard throughout the debate, that is especially so with mortgages.
Under the Tories, we have seen next to no growth for the last 12 years and the economic picture is about to get worse. Over the next two years, the IMF predicts that the UK will see just a third of the growth of Canada and Japan, and less than half that of France and the US. The most recent GDP figures show the UK’s economy shrinking by 0.2%. We are teetering on the edge of what is predicted by some to be one of the longest and deepest recessions in history and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) rightly said, it is a problem made at No. 10. It is not a problem made solely by Russia’s war with Ukraine—if it was, surely every country would be enduring the levels of next-to-no growth that we have had to experience.

Clive Efford: My hon. Friend points out that this is a problem created in No. 10. On Thursday, after we have taken into account the reversal of the unfunded tax cuts that the mini-Budget put in place, the Chancellor will be dealing with the £30 billion gap left from that Budget, and taxpayers will have to pay for that in the months to come. On top of paying higher mortgages, therefore, people will be paying higher taxes because the Government frittered away £30 billion in a matter of weeks.

Sarah Owen: Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has said, even an 11-year-old knows that the Tories “broke the money”. While our European neighbours are working with mortgage rates of about 2.2%, a two-year fixed-rate mortgage in the UK is currently 6.3%. What makes the UK so different from other countries to the extent that our mortgage rates are more than double those of France, Germany, Sweden and Norway? The list goes on. What they do not have to contend with, though—unfortunately, we do—is a Tory Government weighing down our country with more than a decade of stagnation and failure, a shockingly ill-judged mini-Budget and the distraction of scandal after scandal.

Emma Hardy: When the Treasury Committee looked at mortgages in detail, one thing that was highlighted in the evidence sessions was the impact on the buy-to-let sector, where fewer properties will mean rents become more expensive. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Budget not only managed to harm people who own properties but is having a detrimental effect on the income levels of people who are renting?

Sarah Owen: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is shocking is that, time and again, we have heard warm words from Ministers at the Dispatch Box, but there has been absolutely no meaningful action for renters. Labour has called on the Government to bring forward urgent legislation to end section 21 eviction notices. Thousands of people across the country are being evicted from their homes through no fault of their own. The Government could act, but they choose not to.
Ministers cannot hide behind the spectre of Putin forever. At some stage, surely, they have to own their own mistakes. Who has to pay for this failure? Is it the people who caused it? It is not the people who crashed the economy, according to the Government. This warped world we live in now means that the former Conservative  Prime Minister and former Conservative Chancellors are actually being rewarded for crashing the economy. It beggars belief.

Naseem Shah: Not only have the Government trashed the economy, but what adds insult to injury is the fact that, while they recognise the mistake, they are trying to spin a new narrative to try to fool the British public into believing that this was not made in No. 10, but made by other factors across the world.

Sarah Owen: Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Yes, everybody makes mistakes, but this mistake is a £30 billion mistake that the British people are going to have to pay for because Government Members refuse to take responsibility for their actions. It goes against every sense of decency and fairness we have in this country. I would love the Treasury Minister to tell me how they can justify rewarding the former Prime Minister and the former Chancellor with a golden goodbye, paid for with taxpayers’ money—not theirs, but taxpayers’ money. I will give way to anyone who can give me a justification for that—anyone who believes they should not give that money back and can give me a reason. We have heard that former Ministers can give back their severance pay—we have seen that happen and we have seen former Ministers donate it to charity—yet we hear nothing from the former Prime Minister and the former Chancellor who crashed the economy.

Taiwo Owatemi: My hon. Friend is making an important point. Given the fact that the former Chancellor and the former Prime Minister crashed our economy, it is absolutely insulting to so many families who will be struggling to pay their mortgages that they will not give back their severance pay.

Sarah Owen: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is also shocking is that they could not turn up today to say sorry, apologise, and face up and take responsibility for the damage they have done.
There are millions of people in this country who do the right thing. They work their fingers to the bone. They are the ones paying for this Government’s repeated mistakes. They include people like the nurse in the heartbreaking case spoken of by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton), and a couple in Peterborough, who told us,
“My husband and I are both teachers. We work full-time and have a joint income of nearly £80,000. We have a deposit sitting and waiting of £35,000. I have only ever rented for the past 18 years. We couldn't afford to buy at the start of our careers. We were recently told we would be snapped up as first-time buyers. But then the crash came. We can't keep adding to our savings, costs are going up and some banks now want a 40% deposit.”
They include people like Jon, who works full time and whose wife is a small business owner. They and their two children live in London and now face a 60% increase in mortgage payments—an extra £600 a month. They include people like Bernadette in Hastings. Her fixed-term mortgage comes to an end in December and the earliest she can renegotiate is this month. She is incredibly worried about what the costs will be. She is a hard-working mum and a Communication Workers Union member who works two jobs, one as a postwoman and one as a small business owner, which she works around her schoolchildren.
As for the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), when he tells us to shut up—no. When people in this country are suffering, when people in this country cannot afford their bills and when people in this country cannot get on the housing ladder—no, I will never shut up, because the Conservatives crashed the economy. We on the Labour Benches will always, and proudly, be on the side of ordinary working people. Perhaps he should go away and learn some manners.

Emma Hardy: In a Treasury Committee evidence session, Charles Roe, director of mortgages at UK Finance, said that, when the Prime Minister was the Chancellor, he agreed to get rid of the zero earnings rule for the mortgage interest rate relief system. He signed it off. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister should follow through on that promise, so that people who cannot afford their mortgages are able to get the support they need, which they were promised months ago by this Government?

Sarah Owen: That perfectly highlights the problem here. We may have had a change at the top, but we have not had a change of the people making the decisions. Ultimately, there was a problem before the mini-Budget. As we have rightly heard from across the House, people were struggling to get on to the housing ladder and that is continuing. So we need to hold the Prime Minister to account for what he promised when he was Chancellor, but we also need to hold him to account for his inaction since.
Citizens Advice Scotland reports a 25% increase in views of the webpage, “What to do if you can’t pay your mortgage”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) said, it is not just customers, but lenders who cannot have certainty or confidence in the Government to make life better. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), rightly said, why are Ministers not meeting with lenders in the same way that Labour Front Benchers are?
If hon. Members think that is bad, across all advice webpages relating to mortgage problems, there has been a 277% increase in page views between this year and last. People are desperate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said, that is not scaremongering. People are terrified because there is no leadership and because of the Government’s failure.
First-time buyers have yet again been the most affected, with home ownership down 26% compared with last year. That is not progress. I am glad that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) is back in the Chamber, because I would like to update him. His points, which were either given to him by a researcher or his Whips, were clearly wrong, because the peak home ownership rate was actually 70.9%. Guess when that was? In 2003, under a Labour Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said, people should have the right to security and peace of mind in their homes. People would have that under a Labour Government again.

Anthony Browne: Just for clarification on the data—I will provide all that to you afterwards—as I said, home ownership rates went up through most of the 20th century. They reached a peak, you are right, under the last Labour Government, and they started falling—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not me who has been doing that. The hon. Member knows that he needs to address “the hon. Lady”.

Anthony Browne: Home ownership rates peaked under the last Labour Government but then fell under that Government, and they are now going back up.

Sarah Owen: We can argue statistics all we like, but on home ownership, people know what is happening to them right now and the reality that they face outside this Chamber. On average under a Labour Government, home ownership was 5.5% higher than it currently is.

Jonathan Gullis: The hon. Member makes the point about home ownership under the Labour party. Does she accept that the home ownership rate was high in 2008, when we had the global financial crash caused by mortgages and people not being able to make their payments? That was, sadly, on the watch of the last Labour Government, allowing a scheme to take place that enabled bankers to crash our global economy.

Sarah Owen: It is good to hear that the hon. Member is so concerned about people who crash the economy. I wonder whether he thinks his constituents would accept that the people who crashed the economy just a couple of months ago should take a severance payment and a golden handshake using taxpayers’ money.

Jonathan Gullis: Will the hon. Member give way?

Sarah Owen: I will not, because that would be a conversation, not an intervention.
To bring this back to the motion, for too many people, the dream of home ownership is now a never-ending nightmare of moving goalposts, with Tory Ministers reaching Jordan Pickford levels of blocking people from reaching their goals. It should never have been this way. The former Prime Minister should never have been coronated without an election, and the latest one should not have been either. The Conservatives should never have gambled other people’s homes, livelihoods and savings on their catastrophic economic strategy. The Ministers responsible for crashing the economy should never be rewarded for their failure, and the good people of this country can never afford a Conservative Government again. The damage has been done. We need a change of Government for good.

Alex Burghart: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). This afternoon’s debate has been very interesting, but at times we have strayed quite a long way from the motion. During my summing up, I will try to bring us back a bit.

Rachel Hopkins: On that point, will the Minister give way?

Alex Burghart: I will make just a little progress, but don’t worry—we have plenty of time.
In a debate like this, it is important to be clear and a bit careful. There are two things going on when we talk about the economy in general: the international situation and the effect of decisions made by the previous Administration. It is true that both have had an effect; Conservative Members accept that. The Opposition will know that, having heard what the Chancellor said in this House on 17 October and what the Prime Minister said on the steps of Downing Street on 25 October. Listening to many Opposition Members’ speeches this afternoon, however, one would be forgiven for thinking that they had either not heard those statements or completely chosen to ignore them.
The fact is that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have accepted that mistakes were made in the previous Administration, but it is also the case that a very serious international situation is affecting all major economies. That is why the IMF expects one third of the world to go into recession. It does hon. Members on either side no credit not to acknowledge those facts.
The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), talked about a £30 billion figure, but she was not able to identify the source of that analysis or how it was calculated. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Luton North says, “Her brain.” No doubt the brain of the hon. Member for Wigan is very large, but it is not itself the source of the analysis. Were she to footnote her brain in a report, she would rightly be called up on it.
The motion, from which we have strayed repeatedly during the debate, is about severance pay, about mortgages and about an attempt to censure two Members of this House. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State made clear at the start, payments connected to the loss of ministerial office are defined in legislation that has been passed by Parliament and has been in effect for successive Administrations.

Clive Efford: The Minister asks where the figure of a £35 billion gap comes from. It comes from the Resolution Foundation, which states that £45 billion is attributable to the unfunded tax cuts. The higher interest rates account for £30 billion. Offset against the £29 billion for the mini-Budget U-turns and £11 billion for the lower interest rates, that leaves a £35 billion gap entirely attributable to the mini-Budget—a waste of £35 billion that taxpayers are going to be asked to pay for on Thursday.

Alex Burghart: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman’s figures take account—

Clive Efford: Read what the Resolution Foundation says.

Alex Burghart: I certainly will, but I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman’s figures take account of the fact that many of the measures in that mini-Budget have now been reversed.

David Linden: Does the Minister understand that some of us see a hint of irony in how he chastises Opposition Members about where they are getting their figures? The disastrous mini-Budget was brought forward without a forecast from the OBR. The Government locked them in the boot.

Alex Burghart: The hon. Gentleman is an established and experienced debater in this Chamber. He will know that it is important for Members of this House to choose their figures wisely and get them right. If they intend to build a case, it is important that they do their analysis properly.
Ministerial pay arrangements have been in place for a number of Administrations. Ministerial changes and departures are part of the fabric of government; all Administrations experience them and they are a routine part of the operation of government.

Chris Stephens: Will the Minister give way?

Alex Burghart: I will come to the point that I am going to make and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The payments that are being discussed today exist because of the unpredictable nature of ministerial office. Unlike in other employment contexts, there are no periods of notice, no consultations and no redundancy arrangements. This statutory entitlement has existed for several decades, and has been implemented by all Governments during that period. Payments on ceasing office were accepted by outgoing Labour Ministers in the Blair and Brown years, and by Liberal Democrat Ministers during the coalition Government. As has been pointed out by a number of Members, data published in 2010 indicated that severance payments made to outgoing Labour Ministers in that year amounted to £1 million.

Rachel Hopkins: I thank the Minister for giving way at this point, because I value the opportunity to talk about figures that he has mentioned. The average mortgage-paying householder in Luton South will have to pay an extra £500 a month as a consequence of the failure of this Government. Let me return to the motion, however. Can the Minister confirm that if it is passed, the Government will either reduce the ministerial severance payments by £6,000—the equivalent of a year’s worth of increased mortgage payments for my constituents—or seek to recover the amounts from the Members concerned?

Alex Burghart: As I was about to make clear, it is not within the Government’s power to do that. This is a power set in law. It is a power set in the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991.

Sarah Owen: The Minister has laid out the legalities behind severance pay for Ministers, but—we on the Labour Benches have already asked this question several times—does he feel that it is right for the former Prime Minister and the former Chancellor who crashed the economy to take that severance pay?

Alex Burghart: The House will be aware that my right hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng)  served continuously as Members of Parliament for long periods before taking up the offices of Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer—in the case of the former Prime Minister, for 10 years, and in the case of the former Chancellor, for four.
Let me be clear. The fact that this is a statutory entitlement does not mean that Ministers are not able to waive such payments. However, that is a matter not for the Government but for the individuals involved. I am not a Treasury Minister; I am a Minister for the Cabinet Office. This is one of the basic facts that the Opposition do not seem to have picked up on when they embarked on the motion.
Let me now address the points raised throughout the debate about mortgages and housing. I recognise the anxiety that people feel about mortgage payments, which obviously constitute one of the biggest bills that many people experience. There are a range of factors affecting mortgage and other interest rates, but this Government will do everything possible, under this Prime Minister and this Chancellor, to get a grip on the problem of inflation and seek to limit the impact that it has on mortgage rates.
The Government are providing unprecedented levels of support to tackle the rising cost of living. From last week, nearly one in four families across the UK will receive a £324 cost of living payment as part of our £1,200 package for the 8 million most vulnerable families. Our energy price guarantee will save a typical household £700 this winter, on top of the £400 through the energy bills discount.

Emma Hardy: In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), I referred to evidence given to the Treasury Committee. Joanne Elson, the chief executive officer of the Money Advice Trust, said that the Prime Minister, when he was the Chancellor, had signed off changes regarding access to the mortgage interest rate relief scheme, but the trust was still waiting for them to be implemented. Those  changes would mean that people need not have zero income to claim the relief. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is a Cabinet Office Minister, but I wonder what pressure he could put on his Treasury colleagues to ensure that that promise made a month ago is realised today.

Alex Burghart: I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Lady that on Thursday she will have an opportunity to ask the Chancellor about that issue.
Let me return to the motion, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] Please forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker! A thousand apologies. I am so sorry.
The motion claims that mortgage payments rose by £500 a month as a result of the mini-Budget. I think the Opposition will have noticed that on 12 October Full Fact rubbished this claim, pointing out that that figure comes from comparing mortgages available now with those available in August 2020, so it is not a comparison with those available immediately before the mini-Budget. While mortgage rates have risen sharply since the mini-Budget, much of the £500 estimated by Labour is due to rates climbing before it took place.
Once again during this debate we have seen that the Opposition do not have a grasp of the basic facts. Essentially, the facts must not be treated as an afterthought. They are not an afterthought on severance pay, on mortgages or to the international backdrop. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are apprised of the facts and on Thursday they will bring a statement to this House that will look after the most vulnerable in our society and rebuild our economy.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House censures the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk, and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne, for their mismanagement of the economy while in office, which has resulted in an average increase of £500 per month in mortgage payments for families across the UK; and believes that, if they have not already done so, both right hon. Members should waive at least £6,000 of their ministerial severance payments.

Britain’s Industrial Future

Bill Esterson: I would like to start by giving apologies on behalf of the shadow Secretary of State, who is unable to be here today for personal reasons.
The motion in my name and in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends should be self-evident. We want to see the great British industries that have shaped our nation last long into the future, securing our transition to net zero while bringing the jobs and skills so desperately needed in many of our communities. Those skills need to be skills of the future. That is why Labour is committed to 100,000 extra apprenticeships each year and flexibility in the use of the apprenticeship levy to support the training of existing workers. This Government claim that they want to level up the country, but can they deliver well-paid jobs in the areas of the country that they claim to care about? Sadly, it seems that those promises, as we have seen with so many other Conservative promises, are simply not worth the manifesto they were written on.

Jonathan Gullis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bill Esterson: I will give way shortly.
Today, many of our industries, including steel, car manufacturing and shipbuilding, are facing an existential threat from spiralling energy costs, cheap imports and inflation. To make matters worse, they are also facing an indifferent Conservative Government. While other nations have had the foresight to retain a competitive advantage and invest in future technologies, here in Britain the Conservatives are happy to watch decades of expertise and reputation go abroad, along with the high-quality jobs that underpin our industrial communities.
Before the Minister blames international challenges, let us just remind Conservative MPs that this country is uniquely exposed to global economic problems. That is why the Bank of England has described UK-specific factors as behind the high interest rates that threaten homeowners and businesses with higher borrowing costs. The Conservatives have presided over 12 years of low growth, low investment and low productivity. Business investment under this Government is the lowest in the G7. We are the only G7 country where the economy is contracting, and the only one where the economy has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. The Conservatives crashed the economy and they do not have a plan for recovery. Meanwhile, according to the latest Office for National Statistics business survey, a fifth of businesses say that uncertainty about demand and business prospects is holding back their investment plans. We can see what the former Chancellor meant when he used the phrase “vicious cycle of stagnation”.

Mark Tami: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although other European countries have recognised the energy costs facing the steel industry, this Government have done absolutely nothing about them? It is a major problem facing the industry. Although the long-term future might be hydrogen, as we hope it  is, it will not happen without the Government—hopefully a Labour Government—putting in the investment needed to ensure it happens.

Bill Esterson: My right hon. Friend is right to speak on behalf of the steel industry, which faces an existential crisis and may well depend on a Labour Government coming to the rescue.

Emma Hardy: Does my hon. Friend share my frustration that the Government are playing hokey-cokey with Northern Powerhouse Rail, first putting it in their manifesto and then taking it out under Boris Johnson, then putting it in under Liz Truss and taking it out again under Rishi Sunak?

Rosie Winterton: Order. The hon. Lady knows she must refer to other Members not by name but by constituency.

Emma Hardy: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Does my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) agree that, if we want to deliver an industrial strategy, we need Northern Powerhouse Rail to be delivered in full?

Bill Esterson: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. She is confused because we have had so many Conservative Prime Ministers in the last few weeks that it is hard to keep up. Like her, I want to see Northern Powerhouse Rail linking my constituency on the west coast with her constituency on the east coast, providing economic benefits all the way along the route.

Jonathan Gullis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bill Esterson: I will give way. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will apologise for supporting a Government who crashed the economy.

Jonathan Gullis: The hon. Gentleman said he would come back to me when I sought to intervene on his talk of jobs in areas that we promised to level up, such as Stoke-on-Trent. He will, of course, welcome the 500 brand new Home Office jobs that have come to Stoke-on-Trent thanks to the Conservative Government, the 9,000 jobs that have been created thanks to the Conservative-led Stoke-on-Trent City Council under Councillor Abi Brown, and the 1,700 jobs at Chatterley Valley West that the Labour council opposed in May’s elections.

Bill Esterson: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman does not understand that 12 years of low growth, low investment and low productivity mean that places like Stoke-on-Trent have been hit very badly by this Conservative Government.
Where has 12 years of Conservative Government left British industry, not least in places such as Stoke-on-Trent? Manufacturing has seen the worst output over three months since the 1980s. Anyone who genuinely wants to turn around the UK’s poor economic performance cannot discount the role of industry in our economic growth. It is not a question of being either a service-led or a manufacturing-led economy. Successful economies are  a combination, and successful industries are a combination, too. Good manufacturing depends on the services that support production.
Labour knows the value and understands the crucial role of our industrial base in delivering economic growth, which is why we have outlined our industrial strategy to give businesses certainty that they can invest alongside Government to safeguard our world-class industries. Economic strength needs partnership between Government and market, and between business and worker. Our new industrial strategy has partnership at its core, because partnership is how we ensure strong, secure growth and a fairer, greener future.
Our plans for a national wealth fund to invest in our great industries will play a crucial role, alongside businesses and trade unions, in delivering the certainty that investors and workers need. Labour’s plan will bring businesses, workers and trade unions together to safeguard the future of an industry that is the pride of communities across the country. I am talking, of course, about steel.
What we need is not crunch crisis talks and random nationalisations but investment in our great industries, with a real plan to secure our steelmaking future through a partnership to invest in the technology that our steelmakers need to export green steel around the world. But for 12 years the Conservatives have failed to back Britain’s steel industry. The Government have let the industry decline, with jobs offshored and communities damaged. While Governments around the world have been committed to their domestic industries, with long-term strategic investment in green steel production, the Conservatives have failed to invest in the transition, have attempted to weaken safeguards that protected our steelmakers from being undercut by cheap steel imports and have splashed tens of millions of pounds on imported steel to build British schools and hospitals.
Labour will make different choices. We will put UK steel at the heart of our wider industrial policy, building British wind turbines and railways, and investing in carbon capture and storage, and hydrogen infrastructure. I wrote to the Secretary of State two weeks ago about the concerns of the steel industry in this country. As he has not replied to my letter, perhaps the Minister winding up this debate will tell us what action the Government are taking to support this core industry.

Holly Mumby-Croft: Would a Labour Government be looking to support the steel industry in the same way as Labour did between 1997 and 2010: by halving the number of workers in the industry?

Bill Esterson: The hon. Lady should perhaps take more care about how the Chinese are threatening to pull the plug on steel production in her constituency right now.

John Penrose: The shadow Minister mentioned green steel. Do the Labour party’s plans include anything to do with a carbon border adjustment mechanism, which would, not just for steel, but all heavy energy using industries, level the playing field between British energy users, particularly  manufacturing industries, and their cheaper competitors elsewhere in the world, who have cheaper energy costs? Is that part of the Labour party’s plans?

Bill Esterson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should be asking the Minister that question rather than me. [Interruption.] He has told me he is going to ask the Minister in a minute, and I look forward to the answer. Our view is that we have to respond to the fact that the EU is already doing this and we are clearly going to have to take action to safeguard the steel industry in this country. So I would be very interested in what the Minister says and whether it is consistent with what I have said.

Stephen Kinnock: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that what Conservative Members seem to be failing to recognise is that they have had 12 years to deal with the massive disparity in electricity costs between ourselves and our nearest competitors? There has been a total failure to have a procurement strategy that works for the UK steel industry and a complete absence of any action to support the transition to net zero. So rather than us take any lectures from Conservative Members, it is time they showed some humility and actually started to take some decisions about this vital foundation industry.

Bill Esterson: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who has led the steel MPs on this side of the Chamber, and has often led cross-party as well, in fighting the cause of steel communities. As he says, a core foundation industry is crucial to jobs and prosperity; to our national defence and security, with its role in procurement in defence; and to decarbonisation for climate security. It is right that we should be supporting our steel industry and our other core industries.

Jessica Morden: Does my hon. Friend agree that it has not helped that since 2010 we have had 11 Ministers responsible for steel, including six in the past few years alone? It is impossible for the industry and unions to have an ongoing dialogue with the Government for a long-term vision for steel.

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, and I suspect that even if Ministers will not admit it publicly, they would say so privately too. I mentioned that I wrote to the Secretary of State two weeks ago. I am disappointed that I have not had an answer sooner, given the scale of the challenge and the emergency facing so many parts of the steel industry.

Holly Mumby-Croft: The hon. Gentleman mentions the letter that he wrote two weeks ago. I am grateful to have that support even if it is only a letter and very late in the day. Can he set out in a little more detail what else he has done? In particular, can he say what he did to help with the two extensions of the safeguard, because I do not remember discussing that with him at the time?

Bill Esterson: I would have hoped that, as a Conservative MP, the hon. Lady would have been talking to her own colleagues. I hope that her ministerial colleague will have heard what she said, and that she will join me in calling on him to respond to the requests of the steel industry. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) can sit there and heckle all day—he does quite a lot of that—but the  honest truth is that we do need cross-party working to deliver for steelworkers. I am happy to support the call of the hon. Lady, as I am the calls of my colleagues who have spoken in this debate.
On the automotive sector, it must make sense for the Government to support workers at one of the most productive car plants in Europe. That is why the Government should be working with BMW at Cowley to give it assurances that they support electric car production in the UK. They should be working with the car industry to support the transition to electric vehicles, not sitting on the sidelines while our great automotive sector falls behind our European competitors. While we have one gigafactory in operation, Germany has five, with a further four in construction. France and Italy are set to have twice as many jobs in battery manufacturing as us by 2030. The precarious future of Britishvolt is incredibly worrying for the local economy, risking up to 8,000 jobs, but it also further jeopardises our gigafactory capacity as a country. As part of our plans for a national wealth fund, Labour will part-finance the creation of three new additional gigafactories by 2025, with a target of eight by 2030.
Turning to shipbuilding, a successful strategy means making and buying more ships here in Britain, such as the Fleet Solid Support Ships, rather than seeing lucrative defence contracts built abroad. It is, of course, a very important way of supporting our steel industry. Investing in sovereign defence capability is a matter of national security as well as being good for jobs, 6,000 of which are at the UK’s high quality shipyards from the Fleet Solid Support Ship contract alone.
A hallmark of each iteration of this Conservative Government has been to act in the heat of the moment and lurch from crisis to crisis. The revolving door of Ministers, the seemingly endless soap opera, the unedifying sight of Conservative MPs eating bugs in the jungle mask a much deeper problem. The Conservatives are unable to offer British industry the bedrock on which it needs to grow. They do not have an industrial strategy that can last the term of a Minister let alone the turn of the century. Whether that is ideological opposition—the mistaken belief that Government should get out of the way—or pure incompetence, it is clear that the Conservatives are failing British industry.

John Redwood: rose—

Bill Esterson: I suspect the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell us that it is the former.

John Redwood: I support what the shadow spokesman says about wanting more made here; I quite agree. On the gigafactories that Labour is now sponsoring, what demands would it make of those putting forward the idea? The issue is: should they not have some customers and a plan that will work. What does he want from them?

Bill Esterson: The Government really should have done their own due diligence before investing. If the German, Italian or French Governments have made those investments because they have a strategic interest in their car industries, it must make sense for us to do the same here.

Paul Holmes: The shadow Minister outlines this Government’s failure or apparent inaction on shipbuilding in the UK, but can he bring himself today to congratulate the Government on announcing the five Type 26 frigates to be built in the UK, on the Clyde, which will mean jobs and prosperity for not only Scotland, but the whole UK. Perhaps he might like to correct the record and mention that?

Bill Esterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking the question, because it reminds us all that the Conservative Government have cut the number of ships from 13 to eight—so I would be careful about claiming that as a great big success story—and they still have not made a decision on the Fleet Solid Support Ships.
With Labour, Britain can become a global leader in producing electric cars and in self-sufficiency in renewable electricity generation. Meanwhile, the Conservatives continue to drag their feet and retain the moratorium on onshore wind. When the Prime Minister was asked about onshore wind, he answered by talking about offshore wind. It is almost as if he did not understand the difference.
Onshore wind is one of the cheapest forms of energy, and we will double its capacity. We will treble solar and quadruple offshore wind production. We will support nuclear, tidal and hydrogen, because they are all part of a low-carbon future, but not least because Labour will be an active Government, willing to champion British industry and help to create the jobs and prosperity of the future.
Our plans for renewable electricity generation will mean cheaper bills for industry and households. They are being drawn up with business, informed by the evidence presented to us by employers and trade unions alike. Partnership, planning, investment and certainty: those are the elements industry needs to succeed. They are the foundations of the framework that industry will be able to rely on alongside a Labour Government.

Alan Brown: On energy policy and lower energy bills, the shadow Minister mentioned nuclear power. Sizewell C nuclear power station is going to cost something like £30 billion in capital expenditure. The UK Government’s impact assessment, when the capital costs and finance and borrowing costs are taken into account, estimates that it will cost £63 billion. Does he really think that is a good way to spend money?

Bill Esterson: The way the Conservative Government reached the deal was not good value for money, and we certainly should not do that again, but nuclear is a key part of our transition to renewable electricity.
When I visit companies developing new technologies, they are excited by the prospects and the ideas they are developing. Whether on decarbonising air travel, installing insulation in millions of homes, as our energy efficiency plans will do, or our world-class defence companies delivering economic prosperity while keeping us safe, all the businesses I meet want to work with Government. They want a Government who offer stability and are a willing partner, who will lead the world in renewable technology, who will herald the vanguard of new electric vehicles and will supply the world with cutting-edge green steel.
The Conservatives have failed over the past 12 years. Their answer is to offer the slowest growth in the OECD over the next two years after crashing the economy. It does not have to be this way. Britain’s best years really can lie ahead. Britain really can be the best place to start and grow a business. The British Government really can be the partner to industry, ensuring that we make, buy and sell more in Britain. With our industrial strategy and our green prosperity plan, Labour will ensure that, together with business and the workforce, we really can deliver prosperity through partnership.

George Freeman: It is a great pleasure to serve in this debate and to have my first outing at the Dispatch Box as the returned Minister for science research, innovation and technology at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—a name written proudly on the side of the building—in order to refute the litany of woe and failure that those on the Opposition Benches love to reel out, to paint a picture of a British economy that the businesses around this country would recognise and understand, and to set out in some detail the plans we have to support not only the industries of today, but the industries of tomorrow, for which this country is leading in creating the framework globally.
I look forward to a good debate, not least about the depression of the Opposition’s motion, which says very little about their own positive plans to develop an industrial sector for the 21st century, but simply looks to print a cheap leaflet for distribution on the doorstep. We can do better than that, and I hope that we will this afternoon.
As Minister for science, research and innovation in technology, my mission is to make the strategic shift in this country’s economy. The Labour party, in its long period in office, seemed to delight in—I remember the “Deputy Prime Minister” saying he was profoundly relaxed—all the deregulation in the City, the move to a service economy and deindustrialisation. This Government are absolutely committed to taking the crash of 2007-8 under the Labour Government, the difficult fiscal situation afterwards, the pandemic and the emergency in Ukraine as the wake-up call that they are to invest more in our industries of tomorrow and today, to develop our industrial resilience, to support the R&D for tomorrow’s sectors, and to support our leadership in net zero. I would like to think that the Labour party would celebrate that. The truth is that British industry is leading the way in net zero in this country, and that is something we should be proud of. I will come to the detail of that in due course.

Grahame Morris: Will the Minister give way?

George Freeman: I will make some progress in my opening remarks and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
In my specific role and portfolio, my job is to support the industries of tomorrow. In life sciences, I set out with the then Minister the first 10-year life science  strategy in this country. We launched the genomics programme, NHS digital and accelerated access, and we laid a lot of the foundations for this country’s success in the pandemic. Last year, we launched a 10-year space strategy for commercial leadership in the space sector, and we are now in the process of implementing it.
We have set out a 10-year plan for fusion, and we are investing, through the UK Atomic Energy Authority, in the ground-breaking technology at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy. We announced this summer that we are moving that to Nottinghamshire and creating the world’s first industrial deployment of fusion technology at commercial scale over the next 10 to 15 years.
We are setting out a quantum strategy. On Friday, I was with the quantum industry, which is applauding us; we are No. 1 in Europe in the quantum industry and investment. That is a partnership between big companies—Toshiba, BT, BAE Systems and many others—and our very fertile ecosystem of small companies and universities. Similarly, I was proud, as the then Minister, to launch the UK’s first industrial strategy for agri-tech.
Forgive me, then, if I do not take any lectures from the Labour party on the lack of an industrial strategy. Far from it, the former Member for Hartlepool and “Deputy Prime Minister” paid tribute to the Conservative party, to me, the then Chancellor and the then Minister, David Willets—who is now in the other place—for leading the thinking on a modern industrial strategy for a modern economy.
In truth, in the last few years that work has inevitably been interrupted, first by the pandemic—I am proud that the Conservative party put in £400 billion of business support for industry—and secondly by Ukraine, which has been a wake-up call to the world about the resilience of industrial supply chains. We have worked head and shoulders in the last year to beef up those industrial supply chains to protect British industry from that vulnerability, and we continue to do so.

Grahame Morris: rose—

Alex Cunningham: rose—

George Freeman: Let me finish this point.
Thirdly, the tightening of the global energy markets has hit many energy-intensive industries hard. We have announced £25 billion of support for the next six months. That is far from the doom and gloom of the motion, which, for anyone who reads it, paints a picture of this Government having no strategy or policy for industry, which is complete rubbish.

Grahame Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on doom and gloom. There was a mention earlier of fleet solid support ships, which we on this side of the House have argued for many years should be built here for strategic reasons, with steel manufactured here.
May I ask about rail and the home of the railways in the north-east? In my constituency, Vivarail—a world-beating, self-charging all-electric train manufacturer—is starved of Government support and investment. It could be a beacon for the future, so why is it not on the Minister’s list of shining examples?

George Freeman: The reason it was not on the list is that I was listing all the industries of tomorrow. I will come to the specific points he makes. The biggest customer for steel in this country is our rail sector, and we are proud that the UK rail industry, into which we are pouring an unprecedented level of investment, is a major user of British steel. I will come to the steel industry in a moment.
The motion paints a picture of doom and gloom and the collapse of manufacturing. It is time to put that stale old Labour trope to bed. The UK is still the ninth biggest manufacturing country in the world. Manufacturing this year contributed £205 billion in gross value added to the UK economy. We are the fourth largest manufacturing economy in Europe, supporting almost 2.5 million jobs.
Under the last Labour Government, manufacturing jobs had been haemorrhaging. We stopped that in 2010 and, through major investment of the sort that I just set out, we have turned around this country’s manufacturing sector, which is now much more advanced. Again, I am surprised that Labour Members are not congratulating us on that. Manufacturing jobs were collapsing in this country, but 84% of manufacturing now takes place throughout the country, outside London, not just in the old industrial belt, but in the space economy in Cornwall and in Glasgow—I thought that Scottish National party Members would cheer that. There is the north Wales energy corridor, the south Wales compound semiconductor cluster and the Warwick robotics cluster. Our manufacturing economy is highly advanced, highly competitive and decentralised.

Grahame Morris: rose—

George Freeman: I will come to steel, shipbuilding and automotive shortly. I had not mentioned the hon. Gentleman’s rail point because I was highlighting the industries of tomorrow.

Stephen Kinnock: Does the Minister know how many tonnes of British steel there are in a single wind turbine, onshore or offshore, in our country?

George Freeman: I do not have that figure at my fingertips, but I have a funny feeling that the hon. Gentleman does. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) will respond on that later.

Paul Howell: The Minister has talked about the space and science-led businesses around the country. On the north-east, in response to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), we should not forget the tremendous things that are happening at NETPark in Sedgefield.

George Freeman: Indeed, fantastic things are happening at NETPark. One would think that the Labour party, which dominated County Durham politics for decades and seemed to indulge in the poverty up there, would celebrate the phenomenal turnaround in the north-east. It is one of our leading manufacturing regions. NETPark is home to Kromek and Newcastle is home to QuantuMDX. That is a great story of British manufacturing driving an advanced economy in the  areas that were blighted by painful deindustrialisation. I am proud that the Conservative party is in the vanguard of that.

Alex Cunningham: There is no doubt that we have new manufacturing to celebrate in the north-east, but Teesside’s steel industry is a shadow of its former self. It has a few hundred jobs, instead of the many thousands that existed a few years ago, before the Government abandoned us. Does the Minister agree that we should invest in Teesside steel now and use its product for the new industry jobs that we are promised?

George Freeman: That brings me to steel, and the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There has been real pressure on the steel industry in the past 15 to 20 years. Global economic conditions are hugely challenging for all domestic steel sectors. There has been massive overcapacity, unfair overseas subsidies and steel dumping. The real issue is that global steel production has more than doubled since 1995 and China is by far the biggest contributor to that growth. In 1995, China accounted for 13% of the world’s steel production. By 2019, that had risen to 53%. There has been a phenomenal change in the global steel market.

Stephen Doughty: I have been in this place 10 years today and I have worked with my local steel company since I was first elected. It has consistently raised the same issues with me: competitive electricity prices for the green steel it produces and ensuring that the industries of the future, particularly green industries, use UK steel. What exactly have the Government done to ensure that prices are competitive and that UK steel is used in those green industries? They have not done enough.

George Freeman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the challenge. We have done a lot—let me share that with him.

Stephen Doughty: On the specific point.

George Freeman: I will deal with the specific point. Our ongoing support for the steel industry this year includes more than £800 million in relief for electricity costs, in addition to the energy bills relief scheme. The sector can apply for help with all sorts of energy efficiency, with decarbonisation and low-carbon infrastructure. More than £1 billion is available in competitive funding for the industry in that sector alone.

Several hon. Members: rose—

George Freeman: Let me just deal with this point.
We are investing more than £600 billion to transform our country’s infrastructure—roads, rail, broadband and more—and we plan to procure 8.5 million tonnes of steel as part of that over the next decade; the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) touched on procurement. We published an updated steel pipeline in June 2020, to help the industry plan ahead. The value of UK steel procured by the Government for major public projects in 2021, which I checked before coming to the debate, was £268 million—an increase of £160 million from the previous year. The steel procurement taskforce, which we set up as a joint working group between Government and the steel industry, published seven recommendations in February this year,  and those are being implemented through updating the Cabinet Office procurement policy note. As the hon. Member will see—he asked a good question—we are taking serious steps on procurement.
In 2021, the Secretary of State for Defence acquired specialist steel producer Sheffield Forgemasters, with £400 million of investment over the next 10 years, and Sheffield Forgemasters is working with other companies, including Rolls-Royce and the Canadian company General Fusion, on the development of nuclear power generation. In March this year, we successfully secured an expansive removal of US section 232 tariffs on UK steel and aluminium products, which means that UK steel and aluminium exports to the US can return to levels not seen since before 2018. We have also extended our steel safeguard measures for a further two years. I simply do not accept, and I do not think anyone listening to the debate would say, that the Government have done nothing and are doing nothing on procurement. It is simply not true.

Andy McDonald: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard what he has to say, but what does he say to the people of Teesside about his Government’s inaction in 2015? The Italian Government intervened at the Ilva plant in Taranto and came to the rescue of 25,000 workers. The French did the same in Florange, but this Government did absolutely nothing to protect our core industries at Redcar—and we have not forgotten it.

George Freeman: I would point out that last week, Green Lithium announced the UK’s first large-scale merchant lithium refinery and the first such refinery in Europe, to be built in Teesport, supported by the automotive transformation fund.

John Penrose: I want to ask the Minister the same question that I asked the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) about a potential solution to the problems of high electricity costs faced by energy-intensive industries such as steel, which we have been hearing about from Opposition Members. Would a carbon border adjustment mechanism, which the Government have already consulted on and committed to in principle, help to level the playing field between British energy costs and those abroad, therefore making British heavy industry—particularly energy-intensive industries—far more competitive on the international stage?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a very interesting policy observation; as Minister for science, I will not accept it at the Dispatch Box, but I will raise it with the Ministers for industry and for energy.

Alan Brown: The Minister mentioned nuclear power. He heard what I said about costs earlier, but it is also reported that the Government are taking a 20% share in Sizewell C. Does that mean the Government are going to borrow £5 billion or £6 billion to pay for their 20% share of Sizewell C?

George Freeman: How interesting to hear the SNP take issue with—[Interruption.] The hon. Member asked the question, so I will answer it. We are determined to  make sure that, unlike parties on the Opposition Benches, we invest properly in new nuclear in this country, so that we have a resilient, clean and secure energy system. If that means an active industrial strategy to ensure we are able to do it, we are doing it. It would be nice to hear the SNP Government in Scotland take a similar approach to their future and to nuclear in this country, which is vital for the next few years as we get through this global tightening in energy.

Peter Grant: Will the Minister give way?

George Freeman: No, I shall make some progress on this point about the automotive sector, which is also mentioned in the motion. The UK’s auto sector is hugely competitive globally. It is export-focused and has a very strong research and development base. In the last 20 to 30 years, it has transformed from what it was in the 1970s to a highly competitive and technologically advanced R&D-based sector. It is also in the vanguard of the transition to net zero, and the UK is well placed to seize those opportunities because of the Government’s efforts, as we are pursuing an active industrial strategy for net zero in industry.
The automotive-related manufacturing sector is worth £58 billion to the economy and typically invests around £3 billion each year in R&D—£3 billion in R&D from the sector alone. There are 155,000 people employed in automotive manufacturing in the UK in 2021. That is 6% of total UK manufacturing. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh about the success of the British automotive sector, but this is a tribute to business and industry adaptability and the Government’s partnership in setting out a framework for the net zero transition.
Decarbonising transport is already starting to create thousands of jobs in green industries. The production of net zero road transport vehicles is on track to support the development of 72,000 jobs worth up to £9 billion to the economy. The Government have proven loud and clear that we can deliver a green transition and growth—something that all Opposition parties bitterly insisted was not possible.

Gavin Newlands: The Minister talks about the decarbonisation of transport. Of the 4,000 buses that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), promised nearly three years ago, how many are currently on the road in England?

George Freeman: I will have to check the exact number. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not mention Aberdeen’s leadership. With our support, Aberdeen is a hydrogen hub and there has been the creation of hydrogen hubs in Teesside, Harwich and all around the country. We are investing in another industry of tomorrow—green and blue hydrogen. His question is revealing. The motion suggests that the Government are doing nothing at all about hydrogen, but far from it. We are investing in the infrastructure for the hydrogen of tomorrow.

John Redwood: Is there a danger that the UK could end diesel and petrol vehicle production too early compared with competitors—before we have a large electric car industry up and running? Would that not be bad news for our industry?

George Freeman: My right hon. Friend makes an important point about ensuring that, as we lead on the delivery of the net zero automotive sector, we get the balance right, so that we are not unrealistically expecting consumers to make the transition too fast or, indeed, undermining our leadership in that sector. That is a fine balance that the Government are committed to striking. We are determined to lead the way in demonstrating green growth in pursuit of net zero, but we want to ensure that we capture the industrial leadership in that sector.
In the automotive sector, we have again made significant investments. We have invested more than £1.2 billion to support innovative projects through the Advanced Propulsion Centre. The projects that it has funded have helped to create more than 50,000 jobs and save 277 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. Last month, we announced a record £200 million for the Faraday battery challenge. We have worked closely with Nissan and just announced a £1 billion investment to create a north of England electric vehicle hub in Sunderland that will safeguard 6,500 jobs. There have been investments of £227 million in Ford in Halewood, more than £100 million in Stellantis at the Vauxhall plant in Ellesmere Port, and £2.5 billion in Bentley—those are major investments from an industry that is growing in this country with Government support. It would have been nice to hear the Opposition at least pay tribute to some of that success.
In the EV supply chain, we are actively investing in pursuit of our industrial strategy for green growth. The active travel fund has supported that £1 billion electric vehicle hub. We have also supported Pensana’s £145 million investment in East Yorkshire. Through the ATF, we recently supported a £60 million investment to develop hydrogen technologies with Johnson Matthey. Far from the Government abandoning our commitment to industry, we are doubling down on our commitment to help the existing industries of today to make the transition, and to support the industries of tomorrow.
The shipbuilding industry in this country, which Opposition Members suggest has been decimated, actually employs 42,500 people and is worth £2.8 billion. It is a major sector. Naval orders through the Government remain an important driver of its prosperity. In 2020, the Ministry of Defence spent £3.8 billion on shipbuilding and repair, which directly supported 22,000 jobs around the economy. Over the last decade, we have seen once great names in shipbuilding, such as Harland & Wolff, struggle, which puts that heritage at risk. Under the ownership of InfraStrata, however, Harland & Wolff is now strong again; that resurgence is part of a general trend of global consolidation in the industry.
We have seen how the symbiosis between MOD, naval and commercial buildings brings improved competitiveness, as businesses such as Cammell Laird deliver large commercial vessels alongside the Royal Fleet Auxiliary commitments. I am proud, as the Minister for Science, that the royal research ship Sir David Attenborough is one of the ships that has been built of British steel. The commissioning and delivery of the new aircraft carriers has been a massive shot in the arm. At the same time, we have seen big advances in key technologies, such as aluminium hull design and the application of robots for automated welding. That  programme is also driving technological leadership. In 2019, ship boat repair maintenance was worth £2.6 billion to the economy.
I do not think it is fair to suggest, as the motion does, that this Government have neither an interest in industry nor a policy for industry, and that we are abandoning industry—far from it. Not only are we helping our key industries deal with massive global challenges—the pandemic and the energy crisis—but we are actively pursuing an industrial strategy for the industries of tomorrow, and that is actively supporting clusters all around the country to drive levelling up and opportunity. It would be nice to hear the Opposition parties at least pay some tribute to the success of that private-public partnership and to the success and resilience of British industry.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Before I call the SNP spokesperson, colleagues will see that this is a very well subscribed debate, so I will have to put a time limit on. I will start with six minutes, but I warn that it may go down quite quickly.

Alan Brown: Interestingly, the Minister kept using the phrase “industrial strategy” without acknowledging that the previous BEIS Secretary actually ripped up and abandoned the UK Government’s industrial strategy. So there is not an industrial strategy; there is just a series of ad hoc announcements of money and targets that are arbitrary. We do not have a coherent strategy that links it all together.
I should start by welcoming today’s news of the confirmation of the £4.2 billion order for the five Type 26 frigates awarded to BAE Systems at Govan and Scotstoun. Those ships will now be built in the dry because BAE has been able to commit to the £200 million factory that was previously promised by the UK Government some way back. It is not the number of frigates that was originally promised, but there is no doubt that the announcement today is good news for the workers in Glasgow.
That good news is in contrast to a couple of stories and events from yesterday. In the Chamber, the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), let slip what many of us had been saying for long enough, which is that the Australia and New Zealand trade deals that the Government signed are utter rubbish. Also yesterday, Bloomberg ran a story confirming that Paris’s stock market has now exceeded London’s stock market in value. These matters are interlinked. It is a combination of Tory free market ideology and Brexit, of course, and we continually see proof of the harm of Brexit in the UK’s performance compared with G7 and G20 countries.
There was a big lack of talk of Brexit in the contribution of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). Despite what we know of the harms of Brexit, Labour now says it wants to make Brexit work. Free movement of people has gone, the Labour leader tells us. We have recruited too many   people from overseas into the NHS, he tells us. But the reality is that, when Labour has such a lead in the polls, it should be offering bolder plans, such as rejoining the single market, and certainly allowing free movement of people so we can grow the economy again. Right now the Labour position seems to be, “We won’t be quite as bad as the Tories”. That is hardly ambitious.
We have to be realistic: if we want to increase skilled jobs and the workforce, while continuing to recruit for the service sector, the hospitality industry, the NHS and so on, we need inward migration. There may be a legitimate debate about the fact that too many people have exited the workforce for various reasons, but the reality is that we currently have record low numbers of people seeking work compared with vacancies, so clearly immigration is required, and free movement of people with the EU is the logical step to achieve that.

Drew Hendry: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Of course, we need people to staff industries—in my constituency, hospitality is crying out for people and the health industry is crying out for people—and we used to be able to count on EU citizens, but there are not the people there to replace them. It is vital for a country such as Scotland to have a different approach from the one taken by this Government and this place over immigration. Our historical problem has been that we have suffered from emigration, rather than immigration, and we need people in Scotland.

Alan Brown: Absolutely. It is all about keeping that balance of population, growing the workforce, growing the skills base, helping our businesses grow and growing the tax base as well, which creates a fairer economy for all.
For too long in the UK, deindustrialisation was deemed acceptable as long as the financial City was booming in London, but that has been the wrong strategy for decades now. It has left coalfield areas such as my constituency struggling, not to mention the loss of industry and manufacturing in the main town of Kilmarnock and the Irvine valley. That has been replicated in industrial areas up and down the UK. The Tories have arguably now recognised this with the so-called levelling-up agenda, but that is a slogan that admits all those years of failure in terms of deindustrialisation. In reality, it was just a political strategy aimed at the red wall seats. The levelling-up agenda is so ad hoc that nobody can define what it means in terms of outputs and measures, and it opens the way for more political chicanery.
It is clear that Brexit has produced challenges for the automotive industry: additional paperwork; and rules of origin which will become more challenging for the industry as times goes on. According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, despite recent increases in sales, 2022 is on course to be the weakest for car sales since 1982—a 40-year low in sales as we move into recession in the UK and have inflation at a 40-year high. On car manufacturing, while we know there have been global supply chain issues and long lead-in times for parts, the reality is that there has been a drop in  output in the UK compared with the rest of Europe. Only Germany has suffered a bigger percentage decrease in manufacturing output.
On wider industrial strategies in car manufacturing and EVs, we must address the electric vehicle charging roll-out. The Government have a target of 300,000 charge points installed by 2030. That means that, each year from next year onwards, 31,000 charge points need to be installed; that is because only 34,000 have been installed to date. When we consider that the cumulative total installed at present needs to be installed nearly every year for seven years to hit the target, we realise the Government do not have a coherent strategy to achieve that.
I welcome that the battery car sales market share has increased and plug-in vehicles now account for over 21% of new sales, but we need to make sure the lack of infrastructure does not stall sales and output of such vehicles. In small, independent Norway, last year, EVs accounted for 65% of market share.

Gavin Newlands: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in Norway and in Scotland—which has twice as many rapid chargers per head as England, including London—it was public investment by the Government that got that going, leading to a better system of chargers? Then the private sector was brought in. That is the way to go, rather than starting private, as the UK Government did.

Alan Brown: I absolutely agree. The Minister challenged us earlier to welcome public-private investment partnerships; I hope the Minister who winds up will welcome that investment in Scotland and that Scotland and Norway have shown how it can be done.
On the bus manufacturing sector, again, unfortunately, we have had a complete UK Government failure. Just yesterday, The Times ran a story saying that only six low-emission buses out of the 4,000 promised by the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), have entered service in England. Of the promised £3 billion bus fund, 40% still remains unallocated, and only 341 orders have been placed out of the 4,000. It is therefore clear that urgent intervention is required to get manufacturing in the UK up and running. Even worse than that, the first ZEBRA—zero emission bus regional areas—contract was awarded abroad, to China. There is no scope in the current tendering process to assess added value of UK content and community benefit, which would help UK manufacturing companies. That is a complete failure by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
In contrast, the Scottish Government have led the way on this. Three hundred buses have been delivered under the Scottish ultra-low-emission bus scheme, and almost the same number has now been delivered through the Scottish zero-emission bus challenge fund. However, the reality is that companies such as Alexander Dennis need to see more orders via UK Government funding. If they are talking about an industrial strategy and promoting UK manufacturing, they need to do something to get these buses made by UK-based companies.
The motion refers to net zero and creating jobs. Net zero has to be the future if we are going to save the planet. It should be part of a just transition for the oil  and gas industry. With the right support for emerging technologies such as tidal stream, Scotland in particular can be a manufacturing and technology exporter. Green hydrogen needs to be supported in a much bigger way, given investments being made elsewhere in Europe.
In 2020, renewable sources provided almost 100% of the equivalent gross electricity consumption in Scotland, and that was despite the UK Government effectively pulling the plug on onshore wind for a six-year period. Scotland currently has the largest deployment of grid-generating tidal stream turbines, and there is the potential of up to 11 GW of electricity to be generated from tidal stream. Scotland is also leading the way on floating offshore wind. In terms of fixed offshore wind, ScotWind has the potential to develop more than 20 GW of offshore wind in the coming years. With the size of the wind farms being developed, there really is a chance of establishing turbine manufacturing in Scotland, so it is critical that all the permissions are put in place.
However, in Scotland we also have the paradox that Westminster holds all the levers of power in terms of main energy policy. The auction process and procurement rules all lie with Westminster. The setting of the grid charging regime and the regulator lie with Westminster. Borrowing powers to invest lie with Westminster. The ability to pull funding or prioritise projects such as carbon capture and storage lie with Westminster. That is underlined by the disgraceful fact that funding was pulled from the Peterhead CCS project and that the Acorn project is still classed as a reserve project despite having been the most advanced and rounded project overall in terms of CCS clusters.
It is Westminster who can decide on a pricing mechanism for pumped storage hydro or not and, so far, they have ignored the calls to sit down and discuss a cap and floor mechanism for electricity generated by pumped storage hydro. It is Westminster who have control of the consenting rules and processes under the Electricity Act 1989 and are prioritising another £30 billion of capital spend for Sizewell C nuclear power station. It is Westminster who squandered £380 billion of oil and gas revenues.
Despite that—bizarrely—we have Unionists right now seeming to take glee from the fact that not as many jobs may have been created by the onshore wind sector as was originally hoped. That is as much as anything down to procurement processes, which for years the SNP has called to be changed to allow for local content. Right now, we have Unionist glee as they believe that, somehow, Scotland’s renewables potential has been overblown or overhyped by politicians. I assure them that it certainly has not. A report prepared by the Landfall Strategy Group illustrates that pursuing offshore wind and tidal resource alongside a green hydrogen strategy could create up to 400,000 jobs by 2050 and £34 billion in gross value added. That is the sort of ambition required, and that seems to be deliverable only through independence and the full levers of power.

John Redwood: I congratulate the Minister on a lively and informative speech. It was great to have a positive vision for the future from him. He rightly reminded us that many of the exciting new technologies and opportunities available to modern industry and business are being grasped by both the private  sector and the Government working together. I congratulate him and his Department on that work. However, I urge him and the Department to greater efforts in the range of more traditional industries that are still very much industries of the future. We have a choice. If we make the right decisions on taxes, regulations, support frameworks and orders, we can produce more such things at home. If we make the wrong decisions, we will end up importing too many of them.
I start with energy. The Minister’s Department has a crucial role in organising our energy and the transition that it wants as well as ensuring that we have enough of the traditional energy forms when they are crucial to heating our homes and turning our factories. In this period of transition, we can do more to extract more of our own oil and gas. That is greener than importing it, because, in burning gas that comes down a pipe from the North sea, far less carbon dioxide is generated than if the gas were extracted somewhere else, transformed into liquid form and transported—at least half the CO2 is saved that would otherwise be generated. More importantly, that is a safer supply. Even more importantly, if we are still to have high taxes on it, we will collect those taxes. At the moment, the more we import, the more dead money goes out of our country to pay somebody else’s taxes, doubly burdening our industry with the extra cost of what are sometimes extreme market prices to secure the supply—when there is not a long-term contract—and extra transport costs that must be put into the equation for effective delivery.
I urge the new ministerial team to take up from where the old team were moving to and understand that there are quite a lot of good proven reserves out there now. Production licences could be granted in a timely way, and we could have more of our own import substitution and more secure supplies for the future. It is possible to work with the industry on existing fields so that maintenance schedules can be kept to a minimum and output can be maximised, particularly over a difficult winter. We all know that if anything goes wrong with the UK and European gas supply over the winter, it will be our industry that gets caught first; industry is very reliant on plentiful gas supplies for much of its important processes.
We must be careful about carbon accounting. I think a lot of us feel that it does not make a lot of sense to say that the heavy gas-using industries and other fossil fuel-using industries in the United Kingdom, such as cement, glass, ceramics, steel and so on, will be penalised because they are generating carbon dioxide in their process, only to substitute imports of those same products that will certainly produce more CO2, not only because of the long-distance transport, but quite often from the processes as well, as this country has often gone a bit further in more efficient processes than some import substitutes. So that, too, is an area that we need to look at very carefully.
On the car industry, I would like to expand a little on the intervention. Again, a difficult transition is under way and it can only go at the pace that the customers are willing to let it go. At the moment, as we have been hearing, a relatively small minority of the cars built in this country are full electric cars—something to do with price and range, and people getting used to the idea of the electric vehicle—and so during the transitional period we again have a choice: either we produce the diesel and  petrol cars that people still want to buy, or somebody else does that and we end up importing them. Again, I do not think that that is a good course. I would not want to be ahead of some of the other leading car producers in the world in definitely ruling out producing vehicles that still sell well, when we have put a lot of investment collectively into developing more fuel-efficient vehicles, which have much less coming out of the tailgate.
My final brief point builds on one that the Minister eloquently made in certain contexts. We can do a lot more, as the Government are trying to do, with sensible purchasing of our own products. Of course, we do not want to buy products that are less good quality or too expensive. There has to be competition within the UK market to reassure the Government they are getting value, but just as we have always done with things like warships, so we can do for more essential products. We should give the home base the best chance and, if necessary, help people come in as major investors with their factories in order to do so.

Christina Rees: As a former Secretary of State for Wales, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the very exciting global centre of rail excellence that is being built in Onllwyn in my constituency. It will be the only testing centre for futuristic trains and infrastructure in the UK. The Welsh Government have put in £50 million. Does he agree that his Government should honour their commitment to put in £30 million, so that it can be finished on schedule by July 2023?

John Redwood: The hon. Lady has made her own point very well and I trust Ministers will answer. I have not been privy to the documents on this particular project, so I have no idea how I can answer that and I do not know what the background is to the timing and the opportunity that may be presented. However, in general terms I am all in favour of more opportunities for Wales, as well as for England and the rest of the United Kingdom.
In summary, yes Minister, let us have more of it. Let us have more, cheaper energy produced at home. Let us have more steel, bricks and ceramics produced at home. To do that, it will require some actions, inspired purchasing and the right tax and regulatory regime so that we do not penalise ourselves needlessly over net zero and end up burdening the world with more CO2 and ourselves with more imports.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I will have to reduce the time limit to five minutes after the next speaker. Just a reminder that if interventions are taken, to keep to the time, as the right hon. Gentleman did. Otherwise, it takes away from others who have put in to speak.

Ian Lavery: This debate is really interesting. In his introduction, the Minister mentioned that there is a litany of woe and failure in the Labour motion. Of course there is, because we have seen an abandonment of the business strategy from the Government. We have all experienced it. The Minister  also mentioned the amount of money that the Government have given through the automotive transformation fund to Bentley, Vauxhall, Ford and Nissan, but he did not mention Britishvolt in my constituency once.
Britishvolt, a promising start-up company that is seeking to build a gigafactory in Wansbeck, is on the brink of collapse because the Government have not come forward with a promised £100 million grant from the automotive transformation fund. In my constituency, 8,000 jobs have been promised, but the Government will not listen. Once again today, many examples have been given, but not one related to my constituency and there was nothing about Britishvolt. It is the one gigafactory in the country that has planning permission, but the Minister never mentioned it, and we have to ask why. Why are the Government not even sitting down with Britishvolt to agree a way forward? We talk about levelling up in a constituency like mine—there would be 8,000 jobs, of which 3,000 would be with Britishvolt developing electric batteries. That is the future. The Minister continually said that he wanted to talk about the industries of the future. How futuristic can we get? We are talking about electric battery production.
That has not been carried through because the ministerial team in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said, first, that it would not grant any finance. It then said that Britishvolt would be granted £100 million, but that that would be after certain milestones at the end of 2023, but the company requires financing now. Does the Minister understand what that actually means for people in my constituency? We have been left behind for generations and there is an opportunity for 8,000 jobs. There would be 3,000 at Britishvolt and 5,000—perhaps even more—in the supply chain. We have to conserve that.
When the Secretary of State for International Trade was asked about Britishvolt a couple of days ago, she said that there has to be “value for money”. We are talking about 8,000 jobs in a constituency that has had the highest unemployment rate in the country for decades. Is that not value for money? Do people in my constituency not deserve the same as other people around the country? It is not really fair, Minister. I urge him to have a look at Britishvolt situation with all urgency.
We have a lot going on with regard to the automotive industry. It has been reported that Jaguar Land Rover is interested in moving its manufacturing base to Slovakia. BMW has set up shop in China. Electric van start-up Arrival has relocated to the US from the UK. If that trend continues, we will have no automotive industry and thousands more people will be on the dole or facing redundancy.
Other things are happening elsewhere. Northvolt in Sweden has successfully entered the electric car market backed by its Government’s Swedish Energy Agency. That will create thousands of high-quality local industrial jobs. Even the German Government have pledged more than $500 million to Northvolt to construct its gigafactory in northern Sweden. While gigafactories open up across Europe from Germany to Sweden, we are sadly lagging behind, crippled by a zombie Government unwilling to support crucial new developments that would create jobs, boost productivity and grow the economy. When the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) was Prime Minister, I asked him where the money for Britishvolt was. He said at the Dispatch  Box that it was in the post, but we have not yet received a ha’penny for that company in my constituency. I ask again: where is the money?
My constituents and the potential investors want assurances that the sound of workmen marching from the site in Cambois is not akin to a death knell for the promised decade of growth and prosperity for our long-held-back region, or the final nail in the coffin for levelling up. Sadly, given the promises about the site from a long line of politicians over the past few months and indeed the past couple of years, I will have to take any commitments with more than a pinch of salt. The company has seemingly been cast aside by this Government, but its request for an advance grant of £30 million to guarantee up to 8,000 jobs is entirely realistic and reasonable. It is value for money, Madam Deputy Speaker—you’d better believe it.

Holly Mumby-Croft: It will come as no surprise that I want to concentrate on steel, not just because it is an important employer in my constituency, but because I recognise, like many hon. Members here today, that it is a truly crucial foundation industry. From the wire in our tyres to the rails under our trains, we rely on steel in every element of our life; from the skyscrapers around us to the knives and forks we eat our meals with, it has a huge impact on us all. That is why countries all around the world find ways to support and protect their steel industries, why a free market for steel does not actually exist, and why we must always do everything we can to ensure that our nation can make its own steel.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I agree with parts of the Opposition’s motion. They are right that steelworks provide high-quality, highly paid, skilled jobs. I also agree that the steel industry is crucial to meeting net zero targets: steel is irreplaceable, and if we are to have any realistic chance of meeting our goals, we need to see it not as part of the problem but as a way to find solutions. However, that is probably as far as my agreement goes.
The motion does not recognise the work that the Government have done to support the steel industry. In the past three years alone, I have seen with my own eyes how Conservative Governments have been paying workers’ wages in Scunthorpe. They have twice taken the step of extending the steel safeguards. They have helped with energy costs: since 2013, Conservative Governments have provided more than £800 million in support to the steel industry with energy costs alone. I say that not as a Tory MP, but as somebody born in Scunthorpe who comes from a steel family and understands the importance of the industry to our area.
Anyone who has stood inside an industrial cathedral like our steelworks in Scunthorpe, who has felt the heat on their face and who has felt the ground move as the metal is tapped will feel as proud as I do of the contribution that the industry makes to our nation. Of course there are many challenges, from the frankly crackers emissions trading scheme, which risks incentivising companies’ excess production to protect future carbon allocations, to the price of energy, which under Governments of both parties has historically been higher in this country than in the EU. That is unfair, and it makes it difficult for our world-class steelmakers to hold their own.
On our task of decarbonising steel, I agree with many of the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) raised. I want to be clear that we must not fall into the trap of lowering our own emissions simply by shipping them abroad. Our usage of steel will remain, as it should and must, and we must not create an environment in which we damage our capacity or close down our steelworks and end up importing steel. Our climate targets are important, but we all live in one world. I am not interested in any version of net zero that enhances our credentials by offshoring the issues.
We need to take steelworks with us on this journey. I hope the Government will be very firm. As a nation we need to use steel, and we will continue to need to use it. Hammering our own industry and adding the emissions of shipping in order to improve our face-value environmental credentials would be unconscionable and completely pointless.
I welcome the opportunity to raise these challenges—I never like to miss an opportunity to talk about steel—and I know that the Government are not blind to them, because I discuss them regularly with the Government. Many people, locally and in the House, will know that British Steel is also having talks with the Government, and I am very pleased that the Government are engaged in those talks. We need to understand the best way forward, and I hope the Minister will agree with me that we need to find a solution and protect our steel industry.

Yasmin Qureshi: It is a pleasure for me to speak about this issue today, as one of the three Members of Parliament representing Bolton, a town with a proud industrial history. For too long, Britain’s industrial strategy has been plagued by short-termism and vulnerability to political change. We need a real plan for businesses in Bolton and in Britain.
When I visited Booth Industries, which is based in my constituency and provides high-performance and high-integrity protection systems for various construction projects, two things became clear to me. First, it is imperative that we have a “make, buy and sell in Britain” policy when developing our industrial strategy: the benefits of that are clear. Booth Industries was granted an HS2 contract to manufacture tunnel doors, which has allowed it to diversify into other sectors. It wants to become involved with nuclear power plants in order to grow its business, but with EDF holding the contract, a significant amount of its supply chain uses French companies. Surely it makes sense to use British businesses for British nuclear power stations when fulfilling supply chain needs. That would not only develop our own supply chain resilience in Britain but support small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up 99% of British employers, and allow them to grow and invest. This is what levelling up in action means: it means helping British businesses to grow and to train staff, create jobs, improve skills training, and prevent the brain drain of people leaving the country so that they can “get on”.
We need projects such as HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail to be completed. Our train service in Bolton is abysmal. Avanti is meant to be “servicing” the north, but all it seems to service are the pockets of its shareholders, while my constituents, and people in Greater Manchester as a whole and in other parts of the north, are losing  out. We need to invest in roads, rail, light rail, trams, subways and high-speed rail, so that we can have a positive impact on our economy and, of course, benefit all our constituents. Companies like Booth Industries will then have a hook for investment and growth while also improving our own public transport network. That is a genuine win-win.
Such companies also demonstrate that there is a place in Britain for well-paid, green, industrial jobs, as well as tackling climate crises. Labour’s green prosperity plan, involving investment in offshore wind and tidal, nuclear, hydrogen and solar energy, will support companies like Booth Industries a hundred times over. It is about time that Britain had a Government who would create an environment for businesses up and down our nation to flourish, contribute and invest; and it is only the Labour party that is providing the leadership Britain needs in that regard.

Jonathan Gullis: I am proud to stand up for the ceramics industry, which is the beating heart of our great city of Stoke-on-Trent. It is a shame that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), did not use this opportunity to mention ceramics at any stage. This plays into the narrative that the Labour party has set—namely, that it has forgotten Stoke-on-Trent and the ceramics sector and will continue to forget them, as it did in the previous 70 years before Stoke-on-Trent got a Conservative-led Council and three Conservative Members of Parliament, instead of talking up this great city and the fact that this Government have given nearly £4 million through the Kidsgrove town deal to Chatterley Valley West, which will open up the UK’s first advanced ceramics campus, creating up to 1,700 brand new, high-skilled, high-wage jobs for our local area, adding to the 9,000 jobs created across the city of Stoke-on-Trent, of which 2,000 came from this Conservative Government backing Councillor Abi Brown and her ceramics valley enterprise zone.
I am surprised that the motion does not mention Labour’s plan, but I think that is because it is a plan with a lot of holes in it. Those are not my words; they are the words of the shadow climate change Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who was quoted at the Labour party conference as saying such a thing. Even a Labour councillor was quoted by PoliticsHome as saying:
“I’ve got no idea how to explain it”.
These are their words, not mine. That is why I will use this opportunity today to talk up the fantastic ceramics sector and the fantastic work of this Government. This Government understand that UK ceramics employs over 17,5000 staff, that it is worth £600 million in exports and that 75% of the industry is small and medium-sized enterprises. Advanced ceramics are used in our aerospace, in medical equipment, in IT and phones and in glass and steel, as well as in the classic ceramics of your toilet, your brick, your pipe, your tile and of course your plate and your mug, all of which I hope will only ever be from the great city of Stoke-on-Trent.
What can the Government do further to help? The energy crisis is indeed having an impact, and while the energy price cap for businesses has been welcomed, it is still quite a complicated mechanism. However, one company has told me that it will save it over £4 million over the next six months, which is a huge amount for it to invest in its workers and its factory and to continue its investment in decarbonisation. The industry has spent £500 million and more to help to find a way to decarbonise. That is without a single Government grant. The challenge for the Minister is how to treat ceramics in the same way and as importantly as the steel industry, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) is one of the biggest champions I have ever come across in my entire time of observing politics from afar and here in this Chamber.
We also have to look at the technology. Electric kilns are a nice idea but the technology simply does not work for the UK ceramics sector. They do not work at the temperature needed, and even if only one kiln is installed into a factory, it will take up all the power required, so for factories needing four or five kilns, they simply would not work. National Grid is telling manufacturers such as Churchill China, Steelite and Burleigh that it could take up to two years to sort this out. This is a shocking thing, and while it is of course important to decarbonise, it has to be done using a common-sense approach that does not risk this important UK industry or the people who work in it.
We also have to look at the UK emissions trading scheme, as others have mentioned. The fact that the cost of carbon is more expensive than the EU scheme is simply wrong. Also, the UK Energy Emissions Trading Scheme Authority keeps moving the goalposts, demanding quicker decarbonisation than current technology can cope with, and it needs to be held accountable. It is important that we make that point. It is also important to understand that, while we are investing in hydrogen within the ceramics sector, Government grants to support that will be needed in order to see if that technology actually works.
Stoke-on-Trent is a hotbed of geothermal opportunity, but sadly geothermal is not mentioned enough by anyone in this House. I want it to be unleashed and unlocked in Stoke-on-Trent, fuelling the homes of the future to make sure that households and businesses can get cheaper energy and use our natural resources to turn the city’s history of miners and pits and pots into its energy future. It is so important that we grasp that opportunity. We must give ceramics as much recognition and support as we give to steel and make sure that we protect this vital industry.

Alex Davies-Jones: It is an honour to speak in this debate today, and I would like to focus my remarks on the link between Britain’s industrial future and its industrial past. This link is critical to the work of the all-party parliamentary group on coalfield communities, which I proudly chair. As the proud daughter of a former coalminer, I strongly believe that any talk on Britain’s future industrial vision must include a strategy for the regeneration of our former coalfields. My constituency of Pontypridd and Taff Ely is a brilliant patchwork of former coalmining communities that are proud of the contribution their heritage has made to  Britain’s past industrial success. As I said in my maiden speech, just as those coalmines brought previously unreachable levels of prosperity to my area in the last industrial revolution, a new era of green industry in Britain can unlock new heights of prosperity and growth. I strongly believe that south Wales, and Pontypridd and Taff Ely, can be at the forefront of this regeneration.
To secure Britain’s industrial future, we must kick-start a new green industrial revolution, which would bring three extraordinary benefits: regeneration and prosperity on a regional level; economic growth on a national scale; and facing up to the challenges of the climate crisis on a global scale. At the heart of that first point, regeneration, is that much-discussed idea of levelling up, which has been criticised for potentially meaning many things and, by this Government’s record, also meaning absolutely nothing.
We have now had years of successive Tory Governments promising regeneration and completely failing to deliver concrete plans, culminating in February’s astonishingly vacuous levelling-up White Paper. Colleagues will recall that, rather than outline serious policy proposals for regenerating left-behind regions, the White Paper was padded out with a history of renaissance Europe and an enormous list of the world’s largest cities since 7,000 BC.
With funding prospects such as the long-awaited shared prosperity fund for left-behind regions still in doubt, and with the Tory Government asleep at the wheel on how to use that funding, the Opposition have an opportunity to take hold of the levelling-up agenda. Crucial to that agenda is securing an industrial strategy for Britain that is fit for the 21st century because, let us be clear, the Government’s current poor industrial strategy has been a complete failure: 12 years of stagnant economic performance; 12 years of no growth in real wages; and 12 years of deepening inequality in living standards. It is devastating evidence of the UK Government’s fiscal incompetence that Britain currently has more geographical inequality than almost any other rich country, and that was before the cost of living crisis properly took hold.
There are few places where this is more apparent than the south Wales valleys, which are the most deprived economic regions in Wales. We might not have our fair share of wealth, and we might be economically deprived, but we are rich in community, in skills and in opportunities. It is a clear legacy of the failed industrial strategy that our regions, which once helped power our industrialisation, have been left behind. Whether it is our former mining towns such as Pontypridd or the communities across the UK that powered our steelmaking, shipbuilding and automotive industries, the story is the same.
To facilitate a national strategy, the UK Government should be working in lockstep with organisations that are already investing in small and medium-sized enterprises in former industrial communities. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust, to name but one example, is building industrial starter units for SMEs and reinvests the rental income from those units in skills and wellbeing programmes for former coalfield communities. This innovative approach can form part of a joined-up industrial strategy that provides enormous levelling-up potential through reinvestment.
We have seen encouraging glimpses of the economic potential of a flourishing industrial future for Wales, and the work of the fantastic Welsh Labour Government to cultivate that potential must be commended.  In Nantgarw in my constituency, where Craig Yr Allt colliery was once the deepest coal pit in south Wales, I am proud that General Electric Aviation has established a facility that provides well over 1,000 jobs in high-tech advanced manufacturing in our local area.
Despite the work of the Welsh Government, with the limited resources they have available, we will continue to miss out without an overall industrial strategy from the UK Government that is genuinely committed to meaningful growth. It is clear that, after 12 years of Tory rule, the Government are not interested in regeneration, but through Labour’s industrial Strategy, which has regeneration at the heart of its vision, left-behind regions can tap into the prosperity that the next technological revolution brings, delivering higher living standards and higher wages. I will continue to do everything in my power to make this happen, and I will continue to bang the drum for our former coalfield communities to make sure they are no longer left behind but are leading from the front.

Paul Howell: I, like many Conservative Members, have spent time working in business and find it amazing that those who have not are so vocal in claiming that we do not understand. This Government spent billions supporting businesses through the pandemic and are a true friend of business. Just in my constituency, Hitachi is investing in battery technology in Sedgefield, and the many science and space industries in Sedgefield are exemplars in driving opportunities for our region through potential unicorns.
Business needs many things, but the Opposition have ignored the two big disruptions. The pandemic and, of course, Ukraine affect everything we have been trying to do in recent years. As in the previous debate, the Opposition are selective in forgetting that these big arguments need to be considered. UK resilience, however, is a key part of any strategy, and obviously this has been driven further by what has happened with the pandemic and the situation in Ukraine. There is a need for us to be more in control of our supply chains. Whether that is about owning them and building things here, or just taking key positions in them, it is important that we get this right. It is a fundamental part of where we need to go forward.
We have a 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution. We are the first major economy to legislate to achieve net zero. We are ramping up the supply of home-grown energy, and we have reacted to the Putin energy crisis by providing immediate support to make sure our businesses are in a good place. This Government believe that business and industry are central to our economic strength, and have strongly supported investment across the country. Just last month, BP submitted plans for a green Teesside; the hydrogen energy there, which is just next door to my constituency, will create many jobs and help decarbonise heavy transport in the region. This will be the UK’s first major hydrogen transport hub and by 2025 it will become one of the country’s largest green hydrogen facilities.
It is not only international businesses that have a part to play in our industrial strategy. I cannot overemphasise the importance of engaging with local businesses, particularly when pushing for investment in space and science technology. As I mentioned, I am lucky enough  to have companies such as Kromek and Filtronic in my area, as such companies provide high-skilled jobs to hundreds of local residents. But we also have established businesses in the automotive sector, such as Gestamp Tallent, and in many other industries. They are all pushing their agendas, and I have seen Ministers at all of them trying to make sure that they understand what these businesses need and that this Government are supporting them.
As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), we need to be sure to work to have a balanced view of our investment. When considering any investment support, we need to understand what is happening across the world and make sure that we are not disadvantaging our businesses by not investing in them when other Governments are investing in theirs. We need to make sure we are in balance in what we are doing. We need to balance all our fuel opportunities in a completely holistic consideration of our need for fuel and its worldwide impact on the carbon footprint.
Until recently, I served on the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and I have to say that for a significant portion of that time the Labour attendance was appalling. If Labour believes we need an industrial strategy, the time and forum for that is the Select Committee, and not grandstanding here. If Labour Members think the Government need to approach their industrial strategy differently, they have an opportunity to get that message across and challenge the Government through the proper channels.

Sarah Champion: At its heart, Rotherham is an industrial town. Coal, steel and glassmaking have been at the core of our identity since the industrial revolution. Although coal may have gone, my constituency still houses a substantial glass manufacturing business, in Beatson Clark, and steel production, in Liberty Steel. As energy-intensive industries, both have been severely impacted by the current colossal increase in the cost of energy. In August, the average UK wholesale price of energy was a staggering £370 per megawatt-hour, as against a pre-crisis level of £50 per megawatt-hour.
Alongside that exponential rise, UK carbon prices have reached historic highs, costing the steel industry an estimated £125 million in compliance costs this year. That not only harms the competitiveness of the sector, but reduces the capital available to the industry to invest in decarbonisation. Capping energy prices for businesses for six months was broadly welcomed by the energy-intensive industries. However, that remains a short-term solution. Industries are understandably fearful of a cliff edge when the support ends. It must be recognised that both steel and glass manufacturing do not operate in a vacuum. The German Government have confirmed the introduction of a scheme running for the entirety of 2023 that caps power prices for industry at £110 per megawatt-hour, which is more than £100 cheaper than the UK price cap scheme. That offers German steel producers not merely cheaper energy costs than UK competitors, but the stability needed to plan for the long term. In contrast, we have heard only deafening silence from the Government on what comes next.
The rising cost of energy is, of course, unprecedented, but the problem of an uncompetitive UK energy market is not new. Even before the current crisis, the costs associated with UK glass manufacturing were 62% higher than those in Turkey. Similarly, UK steel has, for years, faced considerably higher energy costs than European competitors. This has been brought to the Government’s attention time and again, but their approach has been to listen, offer warm words and then do precisely nothing.
UK Steel recently published its five priorities for the new Government. To anyone who has followed debates on the steel industry for the past decade, these are surprisingly familiar. They call for competitive energy prices, a net zero strategy aimed at delivering a green, modern industry, action on dumping of cheap subsidised steel, a commitment to use UK steel in public infrastructure projects and the creation of a UK steel innovation fund—not so new or ground-breaking, but not done by this Government.
We cannot afford to waste another decade repeating the same practical, sensible demands to a Government who have shown neither the willingness nor the ability to deliver solutions. But that is consistent with the broader failure in the Government’s industrial policy. In my 10 years as Rotherham MP, I have called repeatedly, as have my colleagues, for the Government to work with the industry to develop a clear, forward-thinking industrial strategy. The inclusion of “industrial strategy” in the name of a Government Department is not what I had in mind.
The current crisis must be a wake-up call. UK industries cannot hope to compete internationally if they continue to be hamstrung by a Government whose so-called industrial strategy is based entirely on inertia. It is simply not good enough for Government Ministers to stand at the Dispatch Box and tell this House how important these industries are, to recognise their contributions to the UK economy, but then hang them out to dry with their actions—or lack of actions.
I have heard it all before. My constituents have heard it all before. I urge the Minister to reflect on his Government’s record of failure with the industrial sector and work with these industries to deliver the vital support that they need to weather the current storm, and also to provide a policy environment that allows them to play their crucial part in driving our economy in the years to come.

Chris Clarkson: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). It is also a pleasure to take this opportunity to talk about the proud industrial heritage of Manchester and East Lancashire, not least of my own Heywood and Middleton constituency.
We still make things, important things. We might have started off as textile towns, but, across Greater Manchester, we are now leading the way in advanced materials and manufacturing—from graft to graphene, ours is a success story. That is why I am slightly confused about the tone of today’s debate. Unless Opposition Members have been asleep for the past few years—in all fairness, that would explain a great deal—they would have seen that this is a Government who have taken unprecedented steps to support British industry. We need only to look back a couple of years to the dark  days of the pandemic when the now Prime Minister put £407 billion in to support British industry—jobs were safeguarded, firms that would have otherwise gone to the wall were supported and some sectors even grew during lockdown.
It is also wrong to say that the Government have done nothing to drive innovation. The UK is well on its way to becoming a net exporter of clean energy, with our work on hydrogen and offshore wind among some of the most advanced anywhere. That is to say nothing of the major investment being made in nuclear, with thousands of apprentices training to take advantage of high-skilled and well-paid jobs in the sector. With the advent of small modular reactors, another British success story, we could even see nuclear plants using waste heat to produce hydrogen from renewables. That is hydrogen that is both green and pink—or, if Members prefer, watermelon hydrogen.
A total of £211 million has been invested in the Faraday Battery Challenge, so that we can store this new green energy. Another £1.3 billion has been invested to accelerate the roll-out of charge points for electric vehicles, along with £582 million in grants for those buying zero or ultra-low emission vehicles. An increasing number of those vehicles are being made here in the UK, as manufacturers shift towards all-electric production across their lines.
Add to that, the National Shipbuilding Strategy, which was published in March 2022, along with £4 billion of investment to improve access to finance and to deliver vital skills and funding for crucial research to boost the development of greener vessels and infrastructure. That means more well-paid, high-skilled jobs and another industry secured.
To build those ships and much of the other infrastructure improvements that we are delivering, we need British steel, the best in the world. Thanks to the hard work and strong advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), millions of pounds have now been allocated to bolster that industry; she does not just say things but does them. Using homemade steel is cheaper and better for the environment than foreign alternatives. I should say that my hon. Friend has developed such a reputation as a champion for the industry that she is known affectionately on these Benches as the Steel Lady. Contrast that with Labour’s shameful record in Government, where steel production almost halved on their watch; I was going to stick with calling it brass neck, because I have already used the steel pun, but I think the record speaks for itself.
While Labour Members talk about tolerating businesses and describe them as the enemy, we have been working proactively to rebuild the industries left broken and moribund by the last Labour Government. It is under the Conservative party that a factory in Sunderland is now producing more cars than Italy, that seven of the 10 largest offshore wind farms are located in the UK and that £1.7 billion is being invested in new large-scale nuclear, so that we can reach 24 GW of clean energy on the grid. It is the Labour party who took a lump hammer to our nuclear industry and only managed an anaemic 7% of renewables on the grid, where we have managed 40%.
I will take no lectures from Labour on having a plan for anything, because I still do not think they have a plan or a strategy—no idea, no alternative and nothing  worth saying. Last week I accused them of sixth-form politics; I would like to make an apology to sixth-formers everywhere.
I need only look at my own constituency to see industrious people making innovative products that improve people’s lives and contribute to the economy, whether that is Roxtec in Heap Bridge, making HS2, hydrogen and dozens of other industries work by providing sealing infrastructure, Union Papertech in Norden ensuring that our morning cuppa is not just delicious, but environmentally friendly, SMS in Middleton contributing to the next-gen Tempest fighter project, or dozens of other companies doing other amazing things. I have been incredibly proud to represent them over the past few years. I am proud of British industry and the contribution that the people I represent make to the economy. I am a little bit embarrassed for the Opposition that they genuinely think they cannot do any better than this.

Marie Rimmer: Britain must have an industrial future. At the moment we see other G7 economies having a better recovery while our industries struggle and some of them unfortunately have to close. Once our industries are gone, they are gone, and the Government need to stop taking them for granted.
Our economy is too dependent on the London property market bubble. If we want to be a successful economic powerhouse, the Government must diversify our economy. Right now it feels as though all our eggs are in two baskets: services and property. Any future economic plan must have industry at the heart of it.
Britain should be at the forefront of manufacturing new technologies in batteries, electric cars, wind and other forms of energy. Our economy as it is set up is too vulnerable to shocks in particular sectors. Too much Government money is spent procuring ships, steel and trains from abroad. Why? We have the skills and experience to make them here at home.
Money that is spent on UK goods is reinvested here in our economy. Even if it costs slightly more, due to our higher standards and working conditions, taxpayer money spent here remains at home and helps to support jobs and our economy. British people will get more satisfaction travelling in trains, buses and ferries built here. Only last week, it was revealed that the new Mersey ferry is going to be predominantly built in the Netherlands. I ask the Government—why? Why would they not want to invest in jobs and manufacturing here at home?
Britain should be leading the world in shipbuilding and other sectors, but it is difficult to do that if the Government do not believe in our workers and our industries. It is a lot easier to set up a new service company than it is to bring back a steel plant or glass factory. Yet in order to be a major economy as we go further into the 21st century, we must maintain our industrial sector—and of course that requires good working relationships between management and workers.
Across the industrial sector, there needs to be much better collaboration between the public and private sectors to boost our economy. That is at the heart of the Labour plan to future-proof our economy. There are many important industries that need a bit of help and support in difficult times, and many have been mentioned  in this debate. Steel, automotive, shipbuilding and glassmaking are hugely significant. Of course it is no surprise that I would plug glass, having worked in the industry for 39 years.
Glass will be the low-carbon global material of choice. Many modern buildings are made primarily of glass due to the fact that it is recyclable and does not have a huge impact on the environment. In St Helens, the Glass Futures project will provide research, development and innovation to the glass sector worldwide. The centre will find ways in which glass can be used in the future economy. Glass Futures will keep Britain at the top of the global glass industry. As the home of Pilkington’s glass, St Helens will be at the forefront of new, innovative techniques. The glass industry is one that we can all be proud of, and it will only go from strength to strength as new technologies are developed.
The best way for Britain to boost our industry is to make sure we are leading the way on new technologies and providing high-quality, sustainable jobs. We have heard successive Prime Ministers talk about the UK industrial strategy, but far too often, the answers they reach are short-term solutions to long-term problems. We must look forward to the future of industry and to a fairer and greener future. I am afraid that after 12 years, the Government seem to be out of ideas, but Labour has a plan to get our industrial sector back on track and, more than that, to keep it on track.
There have been three BEIS Secretaries this year alone and 11 since 2010. The industrial sector wants to work with a Government who will listen to it and provide stability. The Government need to listen to our plan, or get back—yet again—to the drawing board.

Iain Stewart: It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. I hope to make a constructive contribution by focusing on an area that I do not think we have touched on much: the appropriate balance between national industrial strategies and more local industrial strategies, both of which are important. I am in no way trying to undermine the importance of sectoral national strategies, which are important for finance, regulation, procurement and a range of other things, but more local or regional strategies are also important. To illustrate that, I will draw briefly on two areas in which I have experience.
First, in my time as a Minister in the Scotland Office, I had responsibility for the city and regional growth deal programme, which, of course, has been supplemented by other policy initiatives such as the levelling-up agenda, freeports, and the innovation accelerators that were part of the levelling-up White Paper. The meaning of “local” differs in different parts of the country—it could mean a city region or an individual authority—but my experience is that empowering a local area to take ownership of what it wants to see locally, working with the private sector and academic R&D in what Sir Jim McDonald of Strathclyde University called the “triple helix”, brings investment opportunities and local growth.
The city and regional growth deal programme is well advanced; all parts of Scotland now have one at a certain stage. Some of the older ones are entering the  second half of their duration, so it is appropriate to think about what comes next and how we can best link together those different initiatives within the national framework, while looking at how local areas can drive forward their priorities, linking into the transport and other infrastructure that is required, the skills base and other important factors. Greater thinking needs to be done about city deals 2.0. The innovation accelerators, which are being piloted in Glasgow, Manchester and the west midlands, will be an important look at what might be achieved.
Secondly, I will touch briefly on my work on the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge growth arc, because it illustrates the limitations we have in joining up policies across different Government Departments and across different areas. That arc does not sit neatly into any geographic boundary; it crosses three of the traditional economic regions, and I have lost count of the number of local authorities that are part of it. There has to be some strategy for the arc to work without looking at projects within it—be it East West Rail or any other scheme—as entities in themselves. The arc will fail to reach its potential if we look at it as just a housing target, or as putting in a new railway, road or other bit of infrastructure. We must maximise the opportunities for each cluster, whether that is life sciences in Cambridge or engineering, automotive or aviation in my area. There are many potential growth areas and we need the appropriate balance.
The work is not complete on that. A representative of AstraZeneca attended a recent event that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and I held. They said that their growth plans are inhibited by the lack of better connectivity, housing and skills. We must look at all those issues in the round, link them to the national strategies, but give appropriate weight to place-based ventures.
I would love to expand on those points, but the clock is ticking. National strategies are important, but they must be counterbalanced by the place-based approach.

Rachel Hopkins: This Conservative Government are incapable of fixing the structural problems at the heart of our economy. Just look at the past 12 years, when we had six different growth plans. In the past six years, we have had five Prime Ministers and, just this year, we have had four Chancellors. Where is the stability? Where is the consistent plan? Instead, there is a track record of wasted opportunities and mistakes. There has been chaos under the Conservatives, who crashed the economy.
Our growth rate since 2010 has been only 1.4%—lower than the OECD average and behind the USA, Canada and Germany. The country faces the lowest growth in the OECD over the next two years, behind countries including Italy and Greece. The Tories have dismantled our economy by entrenching low growth, low productivity and declining living standards. Working people are expected to pay the price of Tory failure.
For too long, industrial policy in the UK has been plagued by short-termism and its vulnerability to political changes. The British public need a fresh start and part of that is reaching a collaborative settlement with the European Union. Many of us voted to leave the European  Union to see a strong, democratic sovereign state working in the interests of the British public: a state that works with business to grow the economy, create good jobs and deliver public infrastructure and projects. Essential to that is an ambitious, Government-driven industrial strategy. We need to rebuild British industry and deliver growth that makes all parts of our country better off.
A recent Rebuild Britain article stated that our country needs
“greater self-reliance with jobs, skills, industries and technologies rooted in local areas serving the needs of localities and the wider nation”,
as my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) outlined so well.
A modern industrial strategy requires building a partnership between the public and private sectors to meet the immense challenges we face. Let us take the automotive industry, which employs 780,000 people in our country and accounts for 10% of total UK exports. Car and van manufacturing can be found in every region of the UK, from the north-east to the east of England, and particularly in my constituency of Luton South, which is incredibly proud of its historical ties to the industry through the local Vauxhall plant.
Despite the Minister’s rhetoric, with the fast approaching 2030 deadline prohibiting the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, unless Britain secures domestic gigafactories for manufacturing batteries, manufacturers will move elsewhere to build their future electric models. Building gigafactories would contribute to meeting net zero, distributing growth across the country and helping to expand automotive exports. It is a win-win-win. However, I heard little about gigafactories from the Minister. Government inaction already means that the UK is far behind other European countries.
The UK has one gigafactory in operation, whereas Germany has five and a further four in construction, not to mention France and Italy, which are set to have twice as many battery manufacturing jobs as us by 2030. Manufacturers such as Vauxhall in Luton need certainty. They need a Government prepared to shape a competitive environment. A consistent policy framework, which businesses can trust, will encourage increased investment over the long term.
As part of our green prosperity plan’s national wealth fund, a Labour Government would part-finance the creation of three new, additional gigafactories by 2025, and we have a target of eight by 2030. Our plan delivers the certainty needed for automotive manufacturers to upscale their operations, in the knowledge that the Government have made a long-term commitment to the industry.
For the automotive sector and many others, we must safeguard the UK’s domestic steel production. While Governments around the world are committing to their domestic industries with long-term strategic investment in green steel production, the Conservatives have failed to invest in the transition, instead attempting to weaken safeguards that protected our steelmakers from being undercut by cheap steel imports and splashing tens of millions on imported steel to build British schools and hospitals.

Holly Mumby-Croft: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Rachel Hopkins: No; I am sorry.
Leaving the European Union enables us to increase strategic investment in our key domestic industries; it should not mean stripping back regulations and leaving them exposed to the global market. Labour understands that, and in government we will invest up to £3 billion over the coming decade to green the steel industry. Labour will end the short-termism through our green prosperity plan and by introducing the industrial strategy council, placed on a statutory footing. Labour will work in partnership with business to tackle some of society’s biggest challenges. We are ready to rebuild the country fit for a fairer, greener future. It is time for a fresh start.

Angela Richardson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on the UK’s industrial future. Guildford is a constituency rooted with industrial heritage. From the wool trade several hundred years ago to one of the first purpose-built car factories in the country at the Rodboro Buildings, built by Dennis in 1901 to make touring cars, buses and commercial vehicles, my constituency has contributed more than its fair share to the UK’s economic growth. That spirit of industry is not diminished and has evolved to focus on developing our economy for the future. High-tech gaming, space exploration and 5G development are thriving in Guildford, and I am proud to represent such a forward-thinking corner of the world.
Guildford is leading the way in research on space exploration, and I welcome the launch of the Space South Central partnership earlier this year, which brings together more than 120 academic institutions, private companies and public sector organisations in Surrey and Hampshire to support those established within the industry as well as start-up companies. Last year, I was proud to visit Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), to see for ourselves the facilities and the expertise that is being put into this vital industry, which, across the local enterprise partnership region, supports 3,245 jobs in 180 organisations.
Surrey Satellite Technology has contributed to many projects over the years, and I am pleased to see that its important work continues. It is currently working on a small satellite to measure the variables of climate change, which is vital if we are to keep to our global commitments and our net zero obligations. It is also building a thermal imaging satellite, which will pave the way for mid-wave infra-red spacecraft with the ability to measure the heat signature of any building multiple times a day, providing real-time insights on emissions, energy use and insulation.
When I asked the Prime Minister, in his previous role as Chancellor, last year about our businesses in Guildford, he said that innovative companies are the strength of the UK economy, and I know he still holds that ambition for sectors such as our space sector to grow and thrive in the future. This industry has the potential to really take off, and I know that this Government and their UK space strategy will continue to support the space industry in Guildford in the years ahead.
Guildford has also been at the forefront of the gaming industry in this country, with over 70 gaming studios supporting more than 1,800 jobs in the area. It has sometimes been called the Hollywood of video games. It all started with Bullfrog Productions, founded over  30 years ago and now part of Electronic Arts, which I am pleased to say has its UK headquarters in Guildford and continues to support local jobs and start-up companies. I mention gaming because it is important in pushing technology in other sectors, including the automotive and medical sectors. My first question in the House was to ask the then Minister at the Department for International Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), how we can support inward investment into the gaming sector. I know that the Government’s commitment to supporting inward investment into the industries of tomorrow, through the local enterprise partnership, Enterprise M3, and other local stakeholders, is as strong now as it was then.
Last Friday, I was pleased to be able to witness innovation in action at the brand-new modular construction facility of QB Technology in Cranleigh. That fantastic company produces efficient and sustainable modular building systems that can be made off-site, under cover, using recycled steel frames, and can be used for commercial and residential construction. That offers exciting prospects for the future, such as quick and sustainable house building with minimal impact on the environment.
Guildford is proud to be home to many of the industries of the future. The Minister for Science, who opened the debate, and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who will wind up, will agree that continuing to support and invest in such industries is a key priority for the Government. Together with companies across Guildford and Cranleigh, we can continue to develop and innovate during the years ahead.

Sarah Olney: The UK economy is simply not working for British people today and is not fit to face the challenges of tomorrow. After years of slow growth, low investment and declining productivity, the Government’s only plan for the economy is to hike taxes and cut public services. We have now lost count of the number of Conservative Chancellors who have pledged to kick-start the economy, but none of their grand ideas lasts long enough to have any tangible or long-lasting benefit. The latest iteration, the growth plan, barely survived a month but still managed to crash the economy. Meanwhile, the Government have allowed existing industries to fall into decline while failing to support the development of future technologies and to seize the opportunities of a green transition.
We are failing to keep up with our international partners: the UK is the only country in the G7 to have an economy that is smaller now than before the pandemic. Our trading position is weaker and industries across the board are facing chronic labour and skills shortages, but the Conservative Government simply have no plan. The Liberal Democrats believe that we need an innovation-led economy with a new ambitious industrial strategy that really works for everyone—one that provides well-paid jobs and opportunities at work; ensures that business serves the common good; and sustains strong communities and thriving places. None of that can be achieved without a proper plan that tackles the issues at the heart of poor economic performance.
Chronic workforce and skills shortages are a major barrier to economic growth. Time and again, workforce constraints are at the top of the list of concerns when I speak to businesses, from local high street firms to large City corporations. Without a skilled and active workforce, an economic plan is not worth the paper it is written on. We need to empower our workforce with the skills and protections that they need to support economic growth. The Liberal Democrats would invest in skills and support lifelong opportunities for retraining to allow workers to adjust to the fast-moving economy of the 21st century. We would also implement a national skills strategy for key sectors to help match skills and people.
We cannot pretend that Brexit has played no part in exacerbating current workforce shortages; thousands of vacancies across our healthcare, manufacturing and hospitality sectors could be filled by foreign nationals, but our current visa system is not fit for purpose. Potential workers face a frustratingly long and costly application process that turns many away. The Liberal Democrats propose to scrap the arbitrary salary thresholds in the current visa system to meet workforce demands in the short term. That would bring in vital labour to support British industry and sustain our economy. Yesterday, hundreds of businesses from the hospitality sector took to Parliament Square to demand action from the Government after warning that one third face closure in the coming year.
Any plan for our economy must focus on reducing barriers to trade, which is vital for economic growth. The Government have long promised to slash red tape and open UK businesses to international markets, but since Brexit, small and medium-sized enterprises that export to the EU have faced an onslaught of red tape and many have simply given up trying.
The Conservative’s flagship trade deal, the free trade agreement with Australia, will contribute just 0.08% to GDP, which is hardly a panacea to our trading woes. Yesterday, the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), admitted that the deal is woefully inadequate. In his words,
“the best clause…is that final clause”,—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 425.]
because it allows the UK Government to terminate or renegotiate the deal in the first six months. The UK gave away far too much for far too little in return and caused irreparable damage to British farming—and for what? Saving face and meeting an arbitrary deadline of concluding negotiations before a G7 meeting is just another example of the Conservatives’ short-sighted and reckless approach to the economy.
The Government seem intent on making it increasingly difficult to trade with our largest trading partner of more than 450 million people across the EU. The Liberal Democrats would focus on rebuilding our trading relationship with our European neighbours to unlock the potential of British business.
Net zero could bring a wealth of economic benefits to the UK. We have a real opportunity to be a leader in green technology, but the Conservative Government are showing a complete lack of ambition. The Liberal Democrats would implement a bold green agenda to deliver on our climate commitments while supporting businesses to adapt and thrive. From new targets for zero carbon flight to new industrial strategies for hydrogen  and power cabling, our plan proposes a major restructuring of the UK’s economic model. Meanwhile, the Government’s previous 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution has seemingly been kicked into the long grass, along with a whole host of manifesto commitments.
I urge the Minister to act on the concerns raised here today, and to implement a new industrial strategy that is aligned to our net zero goals. Only with a real plan for our economy can the UK turn its fortunes around and really unlock our potential for growth.

Paul Bristow: It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate on Britain’s industrial future. It gives me great pride once again to talk about my city of Peterborough, a city whose tradition of manufacturing, engineering and all sorts of other industries makes it crucial to Britain’s industrial future. I also want to pay tribute to the Minister, who is not in his place on the Front Bench at the moment—the Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). The Minister did, quite rightly, refer to how Britain is the ninth biggest manufacturing economy in the world, something that is all too often forgotten about in this country. We constantly hear messages that we do not manufacture and do not make anything any more as a country. Well, that is evidently not true if we are the ninth biggest manufacturing economy in the world.
I would like to return to a theme I have raised in this House before, because the truth is that in Britain we have too many jobs that are low-skilled, have too low productivity and are too low-paid, and we need to replace those jobs with highly productive jobs, highly skilled jobs and, of course, highly paid jobs. The truth is that this country for too long has been addicted to what I would call cheap migrant labour, and so many people in cities such as Peterborough—

Peter Grant: Oh, come on!

Paul Bristow: It is absolutely true. If productivity and wages were somehow linked to migration, Britain would have been one of the richest countries in the world over the last 25 years. It simply does not work. We have been addicted to cheap migrant labour, and far too many people in cities such as Peterborough—far too many young people when they leave education—are referred to as a failure if they do not go to university or do not excel in academic subjects. What we need to be doing is valuing those children who excel in manufacturing and in practical and technical skills. That is exactly why we are building a university in Peterborough—a university that focuses on engineering, on manufacturing and on technical qualifications. That is really important, because that will attract other companies to come to our city, invest in the skills that we have in Peterborough, invest in those new people and ensure that we create those highly paid, highly productive jobs in the future.
There are just a couple of things I want to say about how, other than in Peterborough, we can transfer to that high-skill, high-productivity and high-wage economy. The first is that we have to invest seriously in R&D in this country. We have to continue to commit to that, and encourage private sector organisations to invest in research and development, backed by Government  incentives on tax and regulation. That is absolutely crucial. No longer can we rely, as I said earlier, on cheap labour to drive economic growth, because it simply does not work.
The second thing we need to be doing is investing in skills, and I am really delighted to see our committing ourselves to lifelong learning. For places such as Peterborough, lifelong learning is absolutely crucial, and I hope we can do more and that we can invest in the talented people we have in cities such as Peterborough and across the country.
Thirdly—and I say this knowing that it will not always make me as popular with Members on the Conservative Benches as it will with those on the Opposition Benches—I went to Lancaster week to speak to my old university Conservative association, and what fun I had too. I was led to believe that all young people were socialists; well, that certainly was not the case at Lancaster. What they told me was that the one thing they felt could unlock their potential and their future is a relaxation on planning. We really have to focus on and invest in building the houses and the industrial units of the future. We need to create an environment where we can free up, not logjam, our planning system when it comes to industrial units, business and other areas, as well as homes for the future. No longer can we have a situation where new homes and new industrial developments are blocked for nimbyish reasons. That is not the way to long-term economic growth, and it certainly will not give a step up to young people in my constituency and elsewhere. Frankly, I do not think Labour Members get or understand this; they are still locked in a mentality of continuing with a low growth, cheap labour type economy and— [Interruption.] Their party believes in open borders and wants to import people into this country to do low productivity, low skill jobs. If we had continued with a system like that, Britain’s economy would have grown faster than that of any other country in the last 10 years. If we follow that advice, we will continue down the same route.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: After the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to four minutes. With five minutes, I call Kenny MacAskill.

Kenny MacAskill: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow).
In this debate on the industrial future I wish to deal with renewables, in particular offshore wind. There has been some mention in the debate earlier—indeed, we have seen it in the press—that the statistic about Scotland having 25% of Europe’s potential offshore wind is incorrect. I am happy to concede that, although I am surprised it has been pilloried upon the Scottish Government because the statistic was also echoed by the UK Government, including by Ministers and even a Deputy Prime Minister, but I accept that technology changes.
It remains the case, however, that Scotland’s offshore wind potential is huge and significant. I am not prepared to accept the prognosis of Unionist front organisations or other bodies funded by rich men with an agenda. I maintain that the potential remains big because I remember when Scotland’s first bounty came about in oil and gas.  As a child of the ’60s I recall being told that oil would all be gone by the ’80s, then it would be gone by the millennium, and when we got to the referendum in 2014 we were told that it was nearly gone and it was an impediment—how could a country like Scotland possibly survive as an independent nation if it had to put up with the difficulty of looking after its depleted oil and gas sector? Now, however, we find that there is a rush to grant licences at an excessive pace. So Scotland’s offshore wind potential is huge; even the former Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) described it as the Saudi Arabia of wind. If Scotland can do from wind what Saudi Arabia has done from oil, I will be very happy.
It has huge potential because Berwick Bank alone provides more electricity for domestic supply than Scotland has in households. That shows the potential, but to do it we have to ensure that the state has control, or at least a stake, that local businesses get the contracts, and that local workers get the jobs.
In each of those areas we are failing, and the Government have failed. In that context, I will look at one particular offshore wind farm. That wind farm is at Neart na Gaoithe, a Gaelic name and Hansard will get the spelling from me later. It is situated 15 km from the coast of Fife and 20 miles from my constituency, East Lothian, where the cabling will land. It is owned by EDF and ESB, one a state producer of power for France and the other the electricity board from the Republic of Ireland. The profits from this wind farm—54 turbines providing 370,000 households with electricity—are going not to Edinburgh or London, but to Paris and Dublin. That is ridiculous, and at minimum a stake should be taken by the Scottish or the UK Government.
What about the contracts? The contracts for the 54 turbines are going to Hull; they are certainly not going to Methil, where BiFab lines lie empty, or Arnish where lines also lie empty. I do not begrudge the work going to Hull, but 54 is more than the number of turbines committed to or produced in Scotland at all, which is unacceptable. Every yard in every estuary in Scotland should be producing these turbines because the requirement is there, yet we are getting numbers of contracts that we could count on our hands and feet and that is simply unacceptable. The other contracts are going abroad too, to Belgium, Spain, Norway.
What about the jobs? I listened to the hon. Member for Peterborough going on about jobs going abroad. At this very moment workers in the Neart na Gaoithe field who are operating on the Solstad ship the Normand Navigator, are getting redundancy notices because there has been an extension of the offshore workers immigration rules and as a consequence the employers are laying off UK seafarers—36 so far, and more perhaps in other fields—and replacing them with cheap south Asian labour. That is simply disgraceful. We are not giving the contracts to Scottish business, and the workforce, whether based in Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom, are getting redundancy notices. Many of them took those jobs because there was an opportunity to work closer to home. In my constituency, we will be able to see the turbines turning, yet many in their homes will  not be able to meet the bills despite the fact that the energy should be available cheaply and not priced at the rate of European gas.
We are not even getting the jobs. As I said, we have the ridiculous position that we will be legislating in this Chamber to address the iniquity and disgrace of P&O and yet a situation caused by the Home Office’s rule change is seeing UK seafarers laid off and dealt with as despicably as P&O dealt with other sailors. It is about time that we took the opportunity to get the best of renewables and to protect our own workforce.

Eleanor Laing: Good news: one colleague has withdrawn from speaking, so the time limit will stay for the moment at five minutes.

Andy McDonald: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In 2015, under the Tories, more than 150 years of steelmaking in my part of the world came to a shuddering halt with the closure of the SSI blast furnace in Redcar. The very concept of industrial strategy came to the fore in a unique and graphic manner. The received wisdom of Government Members meant that they had no truck with industrial strategy and they simply allowed markets to dictate and determine whether our industries, such as steel, survived.
We move on and look to the very lands on which the steelmaking industry sat for development now and in the years ahead. There is unanimity of purpose in securing the new industries of the future, focusing on renewable energy development, hydrogen, carbon capture, utilisation and storage, and offshore and onshore wind among many others. There has been much promise of creating 25,000 jobs. I regret to say that there is little evidence of that coming to fruition any time soon. However, the objective is the correct one. What is not correct is the way in which the Tees Valley Combined Authority under the auspices of the Mayor, Ben Houchen, has set about the business.
Vast sums of public money—some £375 million—have been expended on acquiring and remediating the land on the south bank of the Tees for development. No one objects to that ambition, but what happened was that a joint venture company styled under the title Teesworks was formed initially as a public-private partnership whereby the Tees Valley Combined Authority had a 50% share along with its private partner. The sad reality is that the private venture partner got involved only because of its acquisition of an option to purchase land—a ransom strip—which put it in the key position when the combined authority entered into the joint venture. There was no procurement or tendering process whatsoever. A marriage was made simply between the public and private sector in those ratios, but, as we approached the end of the available funding from central Government, a totally and utterly unacceptable decision was made whereby the 50:50 share was transferred to 90:10 in favour of the private sector joint venture partner. Those shares—public property—have been transferred for nothing. For nil. For zero. For zip.
There is a real sense on Teesside that these matters have been conducted in a clandestine manner and an atmosphere of secrecy, with a total absence of any proper, effective scrutiny and a distinct lack of accountability.  There is also a sense of there being something unseemly about those benefiting directly from the contracts so massively.
All of that happened without a proper procurement process, and the Public Accounts Committee does not have the locus to investigate. The National Audit Office claims that it has no responsibility for those moneys and is content to leave it to external auditors. That means that Private Eye has been leading with its detailed and thorough examination. It comes to something when we have to rely on a satirical magazine to undertake forensic examination of how public money is spent, but we need only look at the Tees Valley Combined Authority’s website to see how its board minutes and agendas in respect of not only the South Tees Development Corporation but the freeport board are put beyond our gaze and deemed to be confidential. It is a common experience that freedom of information requests are met with resistance and obfuscation. We need to have a clearer look at these elements, but it is evident that any demand for better scrutiny and better governance is constantly met with cries of disloyalty and a lack of ambition. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is about progressing the agenda, looking after public money and pursuing development in the interests of the people, not simply enriching further the already extremely wealthy.
There will be a day of reckoning on these business transactions. We need to get to the bottom of how these things have been allowed to happen. There is a real challenge to central Government more broadly as to how they exercise control and scrutiny over the expending of such vast amounts of public money. I hope that day will come very, very soon.

Jessica Morden: I am very pleased to be called in this debate to talk, like other hon. Members, about the steel industry, which is so important to, and at the heart of, the community I have the privilege to represent.
In Prime Minister’s questions last week, I had the opportunity to challenge the Prime Minister on the Government’s lack of support for the steel industry. I welcomed his recognition of the importance of the sector to the economy and our communities up and down the country. However, I worry that that was just another set of warm words from a Government who only ever seem to react to crises in the industry when things get desperate, but refuse to implement any kind of long-term plan for steel, a sector that should be the cornerstone of a forward-looking green industrial strategy. The ask was set out excellently by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) earlier and has been well rehearsed in the many debates on steel we have had in this place.
We only have to look at the rate of turnover of BEIS Ministers to get a sense of just how unfocused the Government have been over the last 12 years. Since 2010, we have had 11 responsible Ministers, including six over the last three years alone. I am not sure, even today, exactly who is the steel Minister in BEIS, because there is no list of responsibilities on the website and no answers to the parliamentary questions we have tabled. Will the Minister please tell us in his closing remarks who the steel Minister is? That crude lack of continuity makes it incredibly hard for representatives from the  industry—steel unions, UK Steel and parliamentarians—to engage constructively with the Government and, perhaps harder still, for the Government to develop a strategy to ensure a long-term future for an industry that is of such vital strategic importance to our sovereign capability and national security. [Interruption.] From the look of the note that has just been written, the Minister is asking who the steel Minister is.
If we as steel MPs are frustrated, that is nothing compared to how steelworkers feel. Speaking to union reps from Tata Llanwern and Liberty on Friday, there is a real concern for the future and a sense that opportunities could tragically be lost. There are huge challenges for our industry at the moment. At Tata Llanwern, the average age of the workforce has fallen from 53 to 32 in recent years. The young members of the workforce, having shone with the benefit of high-quality training, are performing everything they are asked to do, but, given the anxieties that hang over the whole sector, these young multiskilled workers are now worried about their mortgages and their futures. Some of those worries relate to immediate problems the industry is facing, including falling demand in the construction and automotive sectors. Llanwern produces world-class automotive steel for Jaguar Land Rover, which has slowed down its production. Looking to the longer term, there is also exasperation with the lack of vision shown by the Government and their failure to stump up the investment funding or work with the industry to help companies decarbonise. Steelworkers feel neglected at a time when their contribution has never been so vital to our economy. We know that the world cannot decarbonise without steel, whether it is for use in wind turbines, electric vehicles, energy-efficient buildings or other green infrastructure. The steel sector is committed to the transition to net zero, but it needs a policy framework that will support, not hinder, it. The Government must provide a solution to allow the industry to invest in decarbonisation.
Energy prices remain a huge issue, with steelmakers still paying well over the odds compared with our continental counterparts. That point was made well by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, who outlined the help that the German Government are giving their industry. We are not being as generous. We also need longer-term reforms to bring down electricity prices beyond the difficult winter ahead, akin to those implemented in France and Germany.
Let us not forget that the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), made reduced energy costs for the steel sector an important promise during the Brexit campaign. Six years on, we are still lagging behind. On that note, the Government should also follow the EU in closing the loophole for the sanctions regime against Moscow that still allows indirect imports of Russian steel from third countries and create a UK steel innovation fund using the £200 million refund from the research fund for coal and steel.
We need Ministers to set ambitious targets for the use of UK steel content in public procurement, as has been said. This is a really important industry, with more than 76,000 jobs in the UK. As a steelworker at Llanwern said to me this week, the UK steel industry is less well equipped to weather the global storm than overseas competitors. He also said:
“in an insecure and unstable world, how can we not produce steel?”

Mick Whitley: As a former automotive worker representing a constituency with a rich industrial heritage, I have taken great interest in the wide range of contributions that have been made today. In the same week that the COP27 talks conclude in Egypt, it is absolutely right that so much emphasis has been placed on the importance of investing in a just transition towards a greener, fairer society.
I have spoken many times in the Chamber about the importance of investing in a green industrial revolution, as proposed in my party’s last election manifesto. As time is short, I want to speak principally about the important role that a robust industrial strategy has to play in securing the future of British shipbuilding—an industry that is not only essential in promoting our economic prosperity, but in guaranteeing our national security.
On a recent visit to Liverpool, the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), described Britain as possessing an
“extraordinary genius when it comes to manufacturing.”
He is absolutely right. Indeed, from his podium, he needed only to cast his gaze across the Mersey to see that genius on full display. The historic Cammell Laird shipyard in my Birkenhead constituency commands an industry-wide reputation for being at the forefront of technological innovation in the sector. From its slipways have sailed some of the most technically sophisticated vessels afloat, including the state-of-the-art RRS Sir David Attenborough.
The yard continues to make an enormous contribution to the local economy. In the past five years alone, it has spent £400 million in the wider supply chain, including £140 million in the local community, benefiting more than 300 local businesses. There is a reason why Cammell Laird was chosen as the site from which to launch the refreshed national shipbuilding strategy earlier this year.
In that strategy, the Defence Secretary promised to lead a “renaissance in British shipbuilding”. Eight months later, however, he finds his resolve being tested by the competition for the construction of the Royal Navy’s fleet solid support ships. When I last raised concerns that work on those vessels might be offshored, the Secretary of State had the temerity to accuse me of spouting “claptrap” and “playing to the crowd”, but in the past few weeks, it has been widely reported that he intends to do just that. Indeed, figures from across the shipbuilding industry are convinced that Ministers are poised to award the £1.6 billion contract to the Team Resolute consortium in just a few weeks’ time, despite the warning that a Team Resolute victory could lead to between 60% to 80% of the work on the FSS ships taking place abroad.
Things do not have to be that way. Since my election to the House, I have consistently argued that the contract must be awarded to Team UK—the only consortium in the bidding process promising to build and design the ship in its entirety in the UK. I have secured Westminster Hall and Adjournment debates on the issue and have written countless letters to the Ministry of Defence, most recently with the support of Metro Mayor Steve Rotheram and colleagues from across Merseyside. That is not only because of the obvious benefits that that would  have for my constituency through the involvement of Cammell Laird in the Team UK bid, but because of the contract’s potential to herald a major leap forward for the shipbuilding industry nationwide. If it is successful, Team UK has pledged to invest £90 million in British shipyards and a further £54 million in apprenticeships and training, including at Cammell Laird’s marine engineering college. A victory for Team UK would directly or indirectly support 6,000 jobs across the country, as well as returning £650 million of the total spend to the public purse through direct and indirect taxation.
The choice facing this Government is simple. My party has committed to strengthening our nation’s security, economy and sovereignty by building in Britain by default. Will the Government now do the same?

Peter Grant: I do not often start my speeches by directly addressing the constituents of another hon. Member, but may I say something to the constituents of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), who is no longer in his place? If his constituents who have travelled to Peterborough from outside the United Kingdom are as appalled as I am that they have been denounced as cheap foreign labour by their own Member of Parliament, and if they no longer feel welcome in Peterborough, they can come to Fife or to Scotland. They will be made welcome. They will find thousands of businesses desperate to give them work: not “cheap foreign labour” work, but well-paid work that will keep the Scottish economy going.
The motion is about the Government’s failures on industrial strategy, which are nothing new for my constituents. A hundred years ago, Methil docks exported more than 3 million tonnes of coal per year. Vast amounts of money were made by the lairds and the earls; a lot of it found its way into the Treasury, but almost nothing was left behind for the benefit of the local community. All that remains of that vast fortune is the memorials, in almost every town in my constituency, to the men and boys who went underground and never came back.
Methil docks then became the RGC construction yard for oil rigs. Again, the people of Levenmouth did their part, and more, to fill the pockets of the Treasury and the shareholders; again, when the downturn came, they were abandoned by Westminster. As the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), who is no longer in his place, mentioned, the yard was then taken over by BiFab, which made jackets and platforms for offshore wind turbines. Once again, the people were let down by the British Government, who set up contracts for difference in a way that allowed south-east Asian companies to compete on cost with my constituents at BiFab. Other European partners, through European legislation, were able to protect their own supply chains, but this British Government made a deliberate choice not to do so. They sold BiFab down the river at Methil, Burntisland and elsewhere, whereas other European countries fully appreciated the need to protect their own supply chains.
Look at the ludicrous scheme for the Rothes pit just outside Thornton in my constituency. It was opened under a previous Tory Government by no less a person than Her late Majesty. We were promised that it would last 100 years and produce 5,000 tonnes of coal per day.  A new town, Glenrothes, was even built to house all the miners who would be needed. The pit lasted five years; the total cost to the taxpayer, in today’s money, was half a billion pounds. The list goes on and on: grandiose schemes, grand words and wild promises to my constituents and others by successive Governments in this place, of all hues. None of them has stood the test of time.
I hope the House will understand why neither I nor my constituents can have any confidence that any UK Government can be trusted to ensure that Fife or Scotland is well placed to take full advantage of the current revolution in industry, particularly in energy technology. We already produce more energy in Scotland than we need, and we are very close to being able to meet our entire needs from clean, renewable, non-nuclear sources. That is the answer that the Minister did not want to hear to the question that he asked: the reason the SNP does not want Scotland to invest in nuclear power is that we dinnae need any. If the UK Government think England needs nuclear power, they are welcome to it. They can build the power stations in England and pay for them with England’s share of the funding, but they cannot expect Scotland to bail them out.
Scotland can be self-sufficient in energy despite the determined efforts of British Governments to put obstacles in our way: the disastrous cuts to renewables in 2015, the decision to make carbon-free renewable energy subject to the carbon tax, the continued refusal to support the groundbreaking Acorn carbon capture and storage project, a whole decade of obsessive and ideologically based opposition to cheap onshore wind power, and the obsession with foisting on Scotland an unwanted share of the colossal but as yet unquantified cost of equally unwanted and unnecessary nuclear power.
It has become clear to a great many people in Scotland that we have what it takes to have a successful industrial economy, but that cannot happen when we are governed by any party in this place that wants to keep us away from our friends and neighbours in the European Union. It cannot happen when we are governed by any party in this place that wants to shut us off from the labour markets of Europe with an overly restrictive immigration policy. It cannot happen for Scotland as long as we remain part of this failed and discredited Union.

Luke Pollard: We should build, make, buy and sell more products in Britain. I think the Government should redraft their procurement rules to favour British companies first and foremost, creating more jobs in Britain. Labour proudly says, “Buy local, buy British”. It is a shame that there are not more Conservative MPs present to hear that, so I will shout it more loudly to enable Members in the Tea Room to hear it: we want people to buy local and buy British, backing local jobs in Britain. That is at the heart of our strategy.
It is an absolute nonsense that since we left the European Union our passports are no longer made in Britain, but are made in France; it is an absolute nonsense that, probably within days, the fleet solid support ships—those vital new supply ships for our Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary—will, instead of being built in a British shipyard, be built in a Spanish one; and it is an absolute nonsense that our farmers are being undercut  by trade deals signed with countries on the opposite side of the planet for lower-standard food when we should be buying more British food. That is what Labour Members mean when we say, “Buy local, buy British” and “Make, buy and sell more here”.
As a proud west country MP, I talk about Plymouth with real passion, because we have so much potential. The Science Minister—the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman)—is no longer in the Chamber, but I hope that if he were, he would add to the long list of examples that he gave earlier the incredible resources and expertise in Plymouth in respect of marine autonomy, which is critical to the exploitation of marine industries in the future.
Industrial strategy must not be limited to land-based industries, and Plymouth is turning the tide and showing how important the ocean is to innovation. Last month I attended the opening by Princess Anne of our new National Centre for Coastal Autonomy at Plymouth Marine Laboratory. This is a cutting-edge collaboration between Plymouth University, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Marine Research Plymouth and the Marine Biological Association—all of them world-class marine bodies—and it builds on our existing industrial and science base. What we are developing in Plymouth is truly world class: the UK’s first autonomous coastal observing and monitoring network. It builds on the success of Plymouth’s Smart Sound project, which delivered underwater wi-fi and 5G—they provide a better signal than can sometimes be had on land—to kick-start autonomous vehicle research and the first autonomous proving ground in the country.
Alongside manufacturers of civilian and military surface, underwater and deep-sea autonomous vehicles, we have a cluster of expertise, investment and gold-plated opportunity for the Government to support, and I think they would be foolish to miss out on it. There will be only one world-class autonomous centre on the planet, and Plymouth is at the forefront of what it could be. I ask the Minister to back us, because with more investment in our city, we could be that resource—not just for Britain or Europe, but for the entire planet, creating high-skill jobs here in Britain. Would the Minister consider creating a marine autonomy accelerator in Plymouth, helping to commercialise the spin-offs that we are gaining from our incredible industry? That would lead to more jobs, more taxation, and more of the commercial spin-offs and innovation that would benefit not only the civilian marine and maritime world, but military deployment as well.
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am quite excitable about this project, because I think it is a genuinely exciting project that all Members should have a look at. It is spread across the far south-west, building on the expertise and the network that we have not only in Plymouth but throughout Devon and, indeed, Cornwall. Thales, M Subs, Sonardyne and many other companies are investing in high-skill, decent jobs, creating an avenue for young people in the future to build not only on the work of Princess Yachts—creating world-class British yachts—but on Babcock’s work in our dockyard.
There is an incredible opportunity for Ministers to seize, but I implore this Minister to adopt a fair-share approach to the way in which the regions are funded. No industrial strategy will work if the lion’s share of investment goes to the south-east. Places such as the  south-west often miss out on the levelling-up agenda. Cornwall is the poorest county in the country, but it often has a very small share of the voice when it comes to the levelling-up narrative. Our kids are worth £300 less per child in school funding. We will not be able to achieve our potential if we miss out on £9,000 per class, and I urge the Minister to look again at how we can deliver on that potential.
Plymouth is getting a freeport, and we have shovel-ready projects for building there, but our council and business groups invested heavily in the investment zone bid. Will the Minister confirm whether the investment zone project is now dead? We need to ensure that those shovel-ready projects are delivered—if not by an investment zone, by some other means.

Alex Cunningham: I draw the House’s attention to my interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on chemicals and on carbon capture, utilisation and storage. Nowhere needs to see our industrial future secured more than Teesside. Unemployment there remains way above the national average, and no wonder. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) said, the Tory Government turned their back on the Teesside steel industry at the former SSI site and 3,000 people lost their jobs. Despite Tory promises, Cleveland Bridge & Engineering, which built bridges across the world, including the Sydney harbour bridge, was allowed to go under after a history stretching back to 1877, with hundreds of highly skilled workers losing their jobs.
When the Sirius mine project, largely owned by local people, many of whom sank their life savings into it, ran into cash-flow problems, the Tees Mayor promised support, only to be slapped down by his own Government, who paved the way for a multinational company to take over. Then there is the fishing industry. That too has been decimated as fish and other sea life have died off. The real cause of that has yet to be determined, but today I welcome the fact that the Government have set up an independent group of experts on that.
It is not all doom and gloom. The Tees could be home to the first carbon capture, use and storage project to get under way, but we now need action from the Government on the business case and contracting arrangements to make that happen. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that it will go ahead and that a second wave of projects will also be forthcoming. Then there is the potential of the controversial freeport and Teesworks sites, which we are told will be home to thousands of green industry jobs. I only hope that the Tees Mayor will deliver this time. He has promised mouth-watering numbers of jobs over his five years as Mayor, but there has been no more than a trickle so far.
I do, however, worry about who will benefit from any development there. As we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, 90% of the shares in the Teesworks site were handed to two private companies, and I agree that it is time for a full inquiry into how that process worked and when they acquired those hugely valuable assets. As for the freeport, I desperately want it to succeed, but not just for the entrepreneurs—it must also succeed for the people of  the Tees Valley. I am worried about the potential for the terms and conditions of people working there to be dumbed down. We want high-value jobs, but not where highly skilled people are exploited for other people’s profit.
I now turn to energy-intensive industries, which are so important to Teesside. Already we have seen CF Fertilisers stop manufacturing ammonia, choosing instead to import it, and I know that another company nearby could be facing closure with the loss of 600 chemical jobs if things do not change for the better. Chemicals are critical not only to the local economy; they also contribute to the UK economy as a whole. We rely on them day after day, from the water we drink, the food we eat and the medicine we use to the mobile phones in our pockets and the electric vehicles on the roads. It is estimated that around 95% of all manufactured goods rely on some form of industrial chemical process. According to the Chemical Industries Association, 4,535 chemical businesses provide over 500,000 direct and indirect jobs, including factories and laboratories operated by a highly trained and skilled workforce.
That sector is one of the UK’s biggest manufacturing industries, with £33 billion of annual exports contributing £31 billion a year to the UK economy, but it is also under the cosh. These numbers are hard-won, and we as a country must do everything possible to secure and grow them further. There is no modern successful economy in the world without a chemical industry, and no other industry is so fundamental to economic, social and environmental progress, but the ramifications of high energy prices are affecting businesses across the board. This is why I have raised the contribution of the chemicals industry, in the hope that the Government will be reminded what is at stake should they not put together an effective industrial strategy. Labour recognises that the job of Government is to offer a reliable and consistent policy framework that businesses can trust and invest alongside, over the longer term. That is what they really want.

Stephen Kinnock: Britain has suffered from 12 years of low-growth, low-wage, high-incompetence conservatism. A key feature of the Conservatives’ disastrous record on the economy is their catastrophic performance on productivity. Output per hour worked in the UK grew at 1.9% between 1997 and 2007 but at a mere 0.7% between 2009 and 2019. It is that lower productivity that has caused the economy as a whole to fall further behind the US, Germany and others over the past decade.
This collapse in our productivity is not an act of God but the result of fundamental political choices. Do we starve businesses of the policy framework and investment they need to get our economy growing while cutting public services to the bone? Or do we pursue smart investment in Britain’s infrastructure, education, skills, research and development, and new technologies such as green energy? The Conservatives have consistently made the former choice over the past 12 years, but what we need for the decade ahead is the latter investment-driven growth model and, more specifically, Labour’s new industrial strategy.
There is a direct link between Britain’s low growth and poor productivity and the decline of our manufacturing sector, which has collapsed from around 30% of GDP  in the 1970s to just 9% today. Manufacturing provides good jobs in less prosperous areas—meaningful, well-paid jobs on which people can raise a family—as well as the industries we need to get us to net zero and, perhaps most crucially of all, the foundations of our national security and economic resilience.
It is deeply troubling that the Chinese state holds a 33% stake in Hinkley Point, a 10% stake in Heathrow airport and a 9% stake in Thames Water. The public are opposed to the road this Government are taking. They know we need a Britain that can stand more firmly on its own two feet, and they recognise the need for foundational industries to thrive if Britain is to prosper. Indeed, in one recent poll, 80% of those surveyed declared steel as a strategically important industry that we must maintain in the UK, but the Conservative Government have failed to invest in our manufacturing base.
This September, manufacturing output fell by 2.3% to record the worst performance in manufacturing over three months since the 1980s. That is why the Labour party’s green prosperity plan will marry the quest for sustainable growth and jobs on which people can raise a family with the need for resilience. We see net zero not as a hindrance but as an opportunity for growth and prosperity.
I can assure the House that nobody will have to drag my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) kicking and screaming to COP. He will be leading, not leaving. He will be boldly setting out his Labour Government’s plan to double onshore wind, treble solar power and quadruple offshore wind by 2030 and, in so doing, create as many as 1 million green jobs—from technicians to plumbers and steelworkers.
This is the level of ambition we need for our country: a plan to make sure British industry leads the world again, making us a clean-power superpower. We will also champion sectors of the British economy that are the envy of the world, from the fintech hubs growing in places such as Leeds to the booming video game production in Dundee and chemicals industry in Middlesbrough.
Our green steel renewal fund will secure the future of the steel industry in my Aberavon constituency in south Wales. By greening our steel processing, Labour will ensure our steelmakers can compete in a world in which global steel demand is on the rise. Make no mistake—Britain needs its steel as a foundation of the modern manufacturing renaissance that Labour will deliver.
Labour will, of course, put resilience front and centre of our industrial strategy by launching publicly owned GB Energy to ensure that Britain becomes energy independent. Not only Labour MPs but businesspeople are backing this. Paul Lindley, a successful entrepreneur, recently wrote in The Times about Labour’s investment-based approach, and the CEO of Tesco said that, when it comes to who has a convincing plan for growth, Labour is the
“only team on the pitch”.
Businesspeople across the length and breadth of the country know that Labour will partner with the private sector to drive a new kind of growth that will rebalance the economy, decarbonise our industries and reignite Britain’s potential. Twelve years of the Conservatives have hammered our manufacturing sector and crashed our economy. We need change and we need it now.

Eleanor Laing: I call the shadow Minister, Chi Onwurah.

Chi Onwurah: I thank Members across the House for their contributions. We may disagree on how to support our great industries, but we can all agree on the importance of UK industry and the importance of this place talking about it.
With our world-leading universities, our fantastic science base, our national heritage in manufacturing and engineering, our dedicated and flexible workforce and the growing global demand, our industrial future should be bright. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) set out, many of our key industries, including steel, car manufacturing and shipbuilding, are facing existential threats.
In three hours of debate, we heard no credible plan for this Government to deliver on industrial jobs, investment and growth. Conservative Members are unable to explain, for example, why UK car production has halved under their watch since 2016—from 1.7 million to just 860,000 cars this year—or why working people in this country have not seen a real-terms increase in their pay since the Conservatives took office. I have to ask: why did Conservative Members really come into politics? Was it to make working people poorer? It seems that way. The Conservatives have been in power for 12 years now: 12 years of low growth, low productivity—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) says it is relative. We want high-paid jobs, with increases for people.

Jonathan Gullis: I will use my third opportunity in this debate to remind the hon. Lady that in Stoke-on-Trent we have created more than 9,000 jobs thanks to a Conservative-led city council, led by Councillor Abi Brown, with 2,000 jobs linked to the Ceramic Valley enterprise zone, up to 1,700 jobs thanks to the Kidsgrove town deal and 500 jobs at the Home Office. That is 10,000-plus jobs in our area. Sadly, 10,000 jobs in ceramics went overseas to China under Labour’s watch.

Chi Onwurah: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has just illustrated yet again how Conservative Members cannot answer the challenge of well-paid jobs across our country and a pay rise for our working people.
We have had 12 years of low growth; low productivity; austerity a-go-go; broken promises and abandoned manifesto commitments; spiralling inflation; the NHS at breaking point; the Home Office broken, and that is according to the Home Secretary; higher taxes; and higher bills for working people. What a record. At the heart of their ideology, Tories do not believe Government can make a positive difference. They do not want to get stuck in; they just want to get out of the way. It is just one long season of “I’m a Tory MP, get me out of here” where British business is concerned.
However, as my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) so ably laid out, the state working in partnership with the private sector can shape and create markets. That is what industry needs: a partner to help plan for the future, provide investment and certainty, skills and infrastructure, research and development,  trade and market access. The reality is that our great industries will never get the partner they deserve under Conservative Governments. It is much easier to destroy than to construct. They can crash the economy, but they cannot build the economy of the future.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) emphasised, net zero and growth are not in opposition. Partnership between the market and the state presents the opportunity to build world-leading industries that will last for decades and spread wealth across the country. Labour believes the UK has huge potential for new green industries, such as clean steel, as championed so passionately by my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock).
With our world-leading research base and universities, skilled workforce and deep capital markets, the UK is also well placed to create new clusters of manufacturing from Bolton to Birmingham. Labour has committed to an additional £28 billion of green capital investment a year until 2030 through our green prosperity plan as part of our British wealth fund.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) said, this country has enormous untapped potential when it comes to electric vehicles. In my constituency, Newcastle University is a leader in research to overcome the challenges of current battery technology. Under Labour, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) emphasised, we will have eight gigafactories to ensure that the next generation of electric cars is made here in Britain. Labour also recognises that hydrogen could modernise heavy goods vehicles and public transport. These are long-term projects, so we will ensure certainty for business with our industrial strategy council to end the farce of long-term plans that do not survive the political cycle.
Science is the foundation of future success, but not content with crashing our current economy, the Tories seem bent on destroying our future economy. They simply are not serious about science. As well as their catastrophic trickle-down experiment with the nation’s economy, they are now trialling Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle” for science. For the past few months, it has been impossible to know both the role and the number of science Ministers at the same time. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who is not in his place, resigned over the previous—times two—Prime Minister’s behaviour. Then he asked for his job back, but that Prime Minister preferred to keep the position vacant. Then the previous Prime Minister gave the brief to the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), but barely had she got her feet under the table when the current Prime Minister gave it back to the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk. Two weeks later, though, we still have not seen any ministerial responsibilities published. The rumour is that the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk has the brief, but the hon. Member for Wealden has the furniture—you could not make it up.
British science is no joke. Labour sees a clear path from world-leading British science to the jobs on which people can raise a family. That is why Labour will aim for 3% GDP investment from public and private sources into research and development, almost double  the 1.7% that we have been seeing under this Government, supporting the jobs of the future—in life sciences, artificial intelligence, clean energy, satellite applications, semi-conductors, quantum technologies and marine autonomous technologies, as championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard).
Labour would maintain our membership of the world’s largest science funding programme, Horizon, and we will ensure that the wealth and opportunity that science brings are spread across our country more fairly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) called for so passionately.

Peter Grant: rose—

Chi Onwurah: I cannot give way, as I must make some progress.
We will help to champion clusters of businesses and universities as engines of regional growth, providing them with the levers and resources to collaborate and innovate together, rather than slashing regional science funding as this Government are doing.
British cities lag behind our European counterparts across productivity metrics. Newcastle, famous for its industrial heritage, is less productive in GDP terms than Gdansk, Lille and Valencia. Unlike the previous Prime Minister, I know that that is not because British workers are the
“worst idlers in the world”.
It is because the Government are not supporting them to reach their potential. Labour will work in partnership with businesses, civil society and trade unions and finally put an end to 12 years of Tory low growth, low wages and low productivity.
Labour’s industrial strategy will deliver clean power by 2030. We will create an economy that cares for the future and that harnesses data for the public good. Labour will build a resilient economy so that we can not only protect jobs in our British automotive, steel and shipbuilding industries, but provide the investment and long-term strategy that we need to be competitive on the world stage. Labour will grab hold of the national prosperity of which Britain is capable and deliver a fairer and greener future.
Today’s debate has shown that the Tories are out of plans and out of ideas. So, here is an idea for them: call a general election and let us put our industrial strategy to the country.

Kevin Hollinrake: I must pass on the apologies of the Secretary of State for not being able to attend the debate, due to a Cobra meeting.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Listening to the contributions, I cannot help but feel that reports of the death of British industry have been greatly exaggerated—that is probably not what the speakers meant, but that is definitely how it sounded.
From the aftermath of the global financial crisis to the coronavirus pandemic and, more recently, damaging disruption to worldwide supply chains, there is no doubt that global economic turmoil in the past 12 years has  presented significant challenges for manufacturing in the UK. Nevertheless, to the shadow Minister’s point on slow growth, it is good to note that the UK has grown at about the same pace as the United States since 2010, and faster than Germany since 2016. It is important to have the facts. In the same period, we have come to understand the scale of the climate change challenge and the transformation that will be required in every element of our economy.
I will first touch on some of the contributions from both sides of the House. It is fair to say that there were some valuable contributions on both sides, although I probably have more in common with the comments from the Conservative side of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) talked about making sure that we have a fair and level playing field in competition with overseas markets. Our “Steel Lady”, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), rightly said that steel’s future was part of the solution for net zero, rather than part of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) talked about the 9,000 high-skilled, well-paid jobs created by this Conservative Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) talked about the green hydrogen opportunities on Teesside. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) talked about the £407 billion committed by this Government to saving jobs and businesses during the pandemic. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) talked about place-based solutions to growth, which I entirely agree with.
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) talked about the opportunities in the space and satellite sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) talked about investing in British talent, in students and workers, which I also agree with.

Alex Cunningham: This is my second opportunity to welcome the Minister to his position, this time at the Dispatch Box. He heard me talk about carbon capture and storage. George Osborne wheeched away £1 billion overnight from the project several years ago. Can the Minister guarantee that the same is not going to happen to the carbon capture industry this time?

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Gentleman made some good points about the opportunities on Teesside. Carbon capture and storage and Net Zero Teesside represent a huge opportunity and something that is on the Government agenda. We are also looking into the life sciences sector in Teesside and the first large-scale lithium refinery in the country, with 1,000 jobs in construction—all these things are happening on Teesside. I recognise his point on the steel sector, but all this carbon capture and storage may well form part of the future for Teesside.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) made some interesting points about buying British. I think everyone in this House would agree on the need to buy British, but does he accept that, that as the trade and co-operation agreement and others open up EU markets to UK companies, we cannot on that basis expect to close our markets to EU countries, or to countries from around the world? We believe  in international trade—[Interruption.] Well, I also believe in buying British. I share his enthusiasm for the Government’s £206 million investment in a UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions—the biggest Government investment ever in that sector.
Manufacturing has been at the heart of our economy for centuries—the shipbuilding, automotive and steel industries perhaps more than any others. In 2021, manufacturing contributed more than £205 billion gross value added to the UK economy, which is the fourth highest figure in Europe. Manufacturing, which is responsible for almost half of UK exports, has a vital role to play in driving innovation, job creation and productivity growth beyond the bounds of the M25. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) will be pleased to note that 95% of manufacturing jobs are outside London.

Alan Brown: Does the Minister accept that although we cannot necessarily stipulate to buy British, procurement can be managed by assessing community benefit and local content as part of quality assessments, so that it is not a case of price takes all? That is not happening with the Government’s bus procurement strategy, and it did not happen long enough in the CfD auctions, either. Is that not something that the Government need to address?

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Certainly, the Cabinet Office is looking at procurement strategy now, and nudges could be made. My point is that we cannot expect other markets to open their doors to our businesses if we close our doors to theirs.
From Sunderland to south Wales, industries are at the heart not just of our economy, but of our communities. Those industries are integral to our economic policy, and the Government are ensuring not just that they are alive and kicking, but that they prosper in the 21st century. Together, Government and business are laying the foundations for an economy that is fit for the future. By delivering the new infrastructure, industries, skills and jobs that we will need to meet the demands of the day, we can deliver a future for all that is more sustainable, secure and prosperous. Across the country, we are already seeing stories of success.
Let me begin with shipbuilding. The UK has always been and always will be a seafaring nation. Today, the shipbuilding industry supports 46,000 jobs in places such as Portsmouth and Rosyth, and adds £2.4 billion to the British economy. I am glad that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun welcomes today’s £4.2 billion order for five Type 26 frigates, which will be built in Glasgow.
Earlier this year, we refreshed our national shipbuilding strategy, unlocking more than £4 billion in investment for maritime firms from the Solent to the firth of Forth. We are improving access to finance by providing credit for UK ship buyers through a home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme, and we are working closely, through the shipbuilding enterprise for growth, to raise the productivity and competitiveness of UK shipyards.
This is not just a story of success at sea; we are leading the way on land, too. We are the sixth largest automotive producer in Europe, and the sector is one of the engines driving forward our plans for green growth in every corner of the country. Last year, Nissan announced  £1 billion in investment to create a world-first electric vehicle hub in Sunderland, safeguarding 6,200 existing jobs and creating more than 1,000 new ones. We know that there is some way to go, but this Government are committed to putting the pedal to the metal and doing all we can to accelerate our efforts.
Many Members quite rightly talked about steel. The Government recognise the challenging international economic environment in which the steel industry has to operate, including in relation to overcapacity. Above all else, we understand the vital role that steel occupies as a cornerstone of the UK economy, underpinning domestic industries and local communities. Over the past nine years, the Government have committed £800 million towards electricity costs through the energy intensive industries compensation scheme, on top of the energy bill relief scheme. Of course, we continue to consider what can be done to ensure that the steel industry is competitive, in fair terms, with other nations.
On critical and advanced materials, we are investing in the materials of the future. That is why we published in July our first ever critical minerals strategy, which sets out our plan to secure our supply chains. We are boosting our domestic capabilities in the production and processing of critical minerals, building a circular economy where they can be recovered, reused and recycled.
The story really could go on, but I think I have made my point. This country has a rich industrial history that goes back centuries. Our world now looks very different from the 18th century, but one thing remains the same: that particularly British spirit of innovation and enterprise. This Government can and will play their part so that no community or corner of this country is left behind.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House condemns the Government for its lack of policy on British industry including the steel, automotive and shipbuilding sectors; regrets that after 12 years of Conservative Government, the UK has the lowest levels of business investment in the G7; recognises the large number of high-quality jobs created by British industry, as well as its importance to achieving the UK’s net zero targets; calls on the Government to recognise the unique challenges and opportunities in each of these sectors; and therefore further calls on the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to urgently bring forward plans to ensure these sectors are supported and to avert job losses that will have a devastating impact on communities and the wider economy.

Business Without Debate

Delegated legislation

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 5 to 12 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6),

Subsidy Control

That the draft Subsidy Control (Subsidies and Schemes of Interest or Particular Interest) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 20 October, be approved.

Energy

That the Energy Bill Relief Scheme Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 1100), dated 27 October 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31 October, be approved.
That the Energy Bill Relief Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 1106), dated 27 October 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31 October, be approved.
That the Energy Prices (Domestic Supply) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 1105), dated 27 October 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31 October, be approved.

Social Work

That the draft Social Workers (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 17 October, be approved.

International Immunities and Privileges

That the draft Inter-American Investment Corporation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 11 October, be approved.

Sanctions

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 15) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 1110), dated 26 October 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 October, be approved.

Financial Services

That the draft Financial Services (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 17 October, be approved.—(Amanda Solloway.)
Question agreed to.

Committee of Public Accounts

Ordered,
That Felicity Buchan be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and James Cartlidge and Mrs Flick Drummond be added.—(Sir Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Women and Equalities Committee

Ordered,
That Victoria Atkins be discharged from the Women and Equalities Committee and Rachel Maclean be added.—(Sir Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Petition - Planned closure of Lloyds Banking Group’s Immingham Branch

Martin Vickers: I rise to present a petition signed by 5,286 residents of Immingham and district, who are concerned about the closure of Lloyds bank, which is the last bank in the town.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Lloyds Banking Group to cancel the closure of the branch and to seek to create a shared banking hub in Immingham where multiple banks can operate to serve the local community of over 20,000 people and businesses.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of the residents of Immingham,
Declares that the planned closure of Lloyds Banking Group’s Immingham branch will result in the town losing the last bank that not only serves the town of Immingham but also the surrounding villages. Access to cash continues to be vitally important to a significant proportion of society, particularly the older generation who tend to have less access to online banking.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Lloyds Banking Group to cancel the closure of the branch and to seek to create a shared banking hub in Immingham where multiple banks can operate to serve the local community of over 20,000 people and businesses.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002780]

Enabling the Public to call a General Election

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amanda Solloway.)

Richard Burgon: I have secured today’s debate to open the discussion on adopting new constitutional mechanisms that could allow the people to directly call a general election. That would apply in scenarios where the vast majority have lost faith in the Government, as they clearly have now, but our parliamentary system fails to respond to their wishes. It is a scar on our democracy that there is currently no mechanism at all for people to do that. The debate is the first stage in my push for such a mechanism. The next stage will be to seek to progress a new Bill through Parliament in the coming weeks in line with my proposal, which I will detail later in the speech.
Such a Bill will not get us the general election that we need right now.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate. There is no doubt that Members have conflicting views about calling a general election. There are two key issues for my constituents: the cost of living and the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which is currently going through Westminster. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, after a period of instability, it is time to give the Prime Minister and his Government a chance to deliver on their promises and maintain the legislative process on which they were elected?

Richard Burgon: I thank the hon. Member, who is ever assiduous in attending and contributing to these important debates, for his intervention. My opinion is that this Government have had more than enough chances to deliver, and while we disagree on the need for a general election now, I will make some wider points that he might be interested in considering.
I hope that this discussion will help to kick-start a conversation about why we need to modernise our democracy to empower ordinary people and prevent an unrepresentative Government or unrepresentative Governments from clinging on to power when people have had enough. Of course, such a mechanism should only be able to be used in extraordinary times, but the current crisis shows why it is needed.
Such a Bill is part of a series of measures that we need to restore trust in our democracy. For example, last year I introduced a Bill seeking to ban MPs from taking second jobs. My latest proposal is for a form of recall mechanism, and it is a response to the political crisis we face. We have had two new Prime Ministers since the public last had their say at the 2019 election. Just 80,000 Conservative party members put one of those Prime Ministers into Downing Street, and even fewer people had a say with her successor, who was chosen solely by Conservative MPs. Both these Prime Ministers have been intent on tearing up the promises that their party was elected on in 2019. For example, who voted in the 2019 election for the new wave of austerity that looks set to be announced later this week?
This Government have no mandate. They have also undermined political trust. Institute for Public Policy Research findings on levels of trust in our politics should concern every single Member of this House. It found that trust in politicians is at the lowest level on record, with two in three now seeing politicians as “merely out for themselves” and just 4% of British people believing that parliamentarians are doing their best for the country. No one side in this House can take satisfaction from this. Voters across the political spectrum are united in their distrust: 67% of remain voters, 68% of leave voters, 64% of Conservative voters and 69% of Labour voters believe that politicians are merely out for themselves.
Trust, I am afraid, is in free fall. The 9% fall we have witnessed over the last 18 months shows a rapid acceleration of growing distrust. In comparison, it took seven years for the previous drop of 9 percentage points, and 42 years before that. The IPPR warns that a decrease in trust in politicians is profoundly disturbing. It is linked to long-term damaging consequences such as lower voter turnout, especially among under-represented groups. The Office for National Statistics reports similar concerns with trust in our democratic institutions. Deep reform of our economy and politics will be needed to address this.
It is clear that our democracy is not fit for purpose, and there are two ways of dealing with this crisis of democracy. There is the method of this Government, which is to attack hard-won civil liberties and curtail democratic rights. This authoritarian drift combines anti-trade union legislation with draconian attacks on the right to peaceful protest and voter suppression through the introduction of voter ID, which will target black, Asian and minority ethnic and working-class voters. This authoritarian approach has even led to police arresting journalists covering protests. The alternative is to strengthen democratic rights and modernise our democratic processes.
That brings me on to my proposal, which is a form of recall procedure through a verified petition to call a general election. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance describes such recall processes as a form of “direct democracy” and a
“political instrument through which the electorate in a particular electoral jurisdiction can express their dissatisfaction.”
It adds that
“the procedure of the recall is associated with the idea that representatives must remain accountable to the people who elected them.”
So, voters should be able to terminate the mandate before the end of a term when their representatives fall short of expectations.
Welp and Whitehead explain in their 2020 book “The Politics of Recall” that
“The idea of ‘recall’ elections is not a last minute ‘add on’ to principles of representative government, but a logical strand of thought interwoven into its foundational reasoning.”
In the same book, Matt Qvortrup traces the development of the recall in the history of political philosophy from the Roman republic to the present day. While I do not have time today to recount the history of recalls in full, I would like to highlight that movements that did so much in the development of our own democracy envisaged  mechanisms with echoes of what I am proposing today. During the English revolution, the leading Leveller, Lieutenant Colonel John Lilburne, championed recall as one of the democratic correctives to the risk of an oppressive, overbearing Parliament. The Chartists envisioned annual elections, with the arguments given then not so different from those offered by contemporary movements in favour of recall. There was even a provision for the recall of congressmen by their voters in the first draft of the American constitution written by James Madison.
Later in the United States, the Socialist Labour party and the Populist party pushed that idea as we approached the 20th century. Recall was then included in the new charter of the city of Los Angeles in 1903, and within a decade, it had been taken up by 200 cities and three states. Switzerland was the first modern liberal democracy to introduce recall at the end of the 19th century, although only at a sub-national level.
In the post-war era, recall was used as part of a series of direct democratic provisions in Japan from 1947 to empower citizens with the right to initiate petitions to dissolve local assemblies, recall individual assembly members and recall mayors or governors. More recently, the push for recall has been linked with the introduction of democracy. After the demise of Latin American dictatorships in the 1980s, recall increased its presence and integrated representative democracy with participatory democracy. Likewise, Germany and Poland introduced recall powers after the fall of the Berlin wall.

Martin Vickers: I allowed the hon. Gentleman to develop his argument, because I assumed that he was going to at least give a date by which time a recall would be permissible. Surely, if we are to have any form of stable Government, there must be a time limit between the election of a Government and a recall petition of at least—what?—two years?

Richard Burgon: The hon. Gentleman anticipates the point that I will move on to. It may be a case of great minds think alike.
That brings us to today. A form of recall power exists in a diverse range of countries and political systems. Over the past century, the countries that have made the greatest use of recall are Peru, Japan, the United States and Poland. Academic researchers note that recall provisions also exist at one level of Government or another—local, regional or national—in Argentina, Bolivia, Canada, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Germany, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Latvia and Switzerland.
Perhaps the most famous case of recall in recent decades is the 2003 recall in California of Governor Gray Davis, where growing dissatisfaction about energy provision and public services led to the election of Governor Schwarzenegger. Because of the high interest in the recall election, the new governor received 650,000 more votes in his election than Governor Davis had received. Recall is generally used to remove individual elected officials, including Presidents, but there are examples, including the German Land of Berlin, where recall, initiated and approved by citizens, can be applied to the entire Parliament. Latvia goes even further: the electorate have a constitutional right to initiate a national referendum to recall Parliament. It is worth noting that recall is now supported by the largest progressive party in France.  Mexico held its first-ever national recall election on the President earlier this year. Although that was initiated by the President, perhaps Mexico will be the next country to hold a citizen-initiated recall in the future.
According to Welp and Whitehead, the recall is currently in a “boom phase”, with Welp noting that recall provisions
“have been introduced more frequently since the 1980s”,
while
“in the past were restricted to small municipalities, they have recently reached bigger units such as California, Warsaw, Lima and even presidents.”
Why is recall becoming more popular? Welp and Whitehead explain that
“citizen dissatisfaction with their elected representatives is sufficiently acute and widespread to generate persistent pressure for the introduction of more direct forms of accountability.”
They argue that although recall is not without risk,
“There is some serious empirical support for the proposition that recall mechanisms...can indeed provide genuine improvements to the quality and credibility of democratic institutions when introduced and integrated into the rest of the representative system in a careful and constructive manner.”
My proposal would, as a starting point, seek to amend the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 to allow people to directly call an election under the following circumstances: first, if we are more than halfway through the five-year maximum period for a Parliament; and secondly, if at least half the number of voters in the previous general election endorse the call for an early general election via an official petition process.

Alex Burghart: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a very interesting speech. I was wondering how he settled on that threshold.

Richard Burgon: This is an opening gambit to try to start a discussion. I am pleased that the Minister seems to be interested in the idea. In his response, if time allows, perhaps he will say that in principle he agrees with this further means of improving and refining our democracy.
Whatever arguments are made against my plan, it cannot be said that in principle recall procedures are incompatible with our democracy. In 2015, this House enacted the Recall of MPs Act, a new law under which voters would be able to recall their constituency Member of Parliament in certain circumstances. This was in response to the MPs expenses scandal. Under this new Act, for a recall petition to be successful, 10% of eligible registered voters need to sign a petition that is open for six weeks. Electors may sign in person, by post or by proxy. The Recall of MPs Act was undoubtedly a step forward, but a major shortcoming is that, unlike provisions in other countries, it does not allow constituents to begin proceedings unless the MP is found guilty of wrongdoing. This shortcoming was widely recognised at the time. The then Conservative MP, now Lord Goldsmith, said at the time:
“Recall is supposed to be about empowering voters to hold their MPs to account, and the Government’s proposals fall scandalously short. They don’t empower voters in any meaningful sense at all”.
We are obviously from the two ends of the political spectrum, but I very much agree with those remarks. Since 2015 and the new recall Act, the rot has got ever deeper in our politics and much bolder measures are required.
Our democracy is in crisis. People out there have lost faith in this Government and are losing trust in our institutions. If we want to rebuild trust in our institutions, people need to see that they are working for them. Recall can be a key way of empowering people and restoring trust in our democratic institutions. Although recall is widely used across the world in a variety of contexts, I accept that it is not commonly used at the national level in Europe, but it was once uncommon for women to have the vote. When Finland became the first country in Europe to give women the vote in 1906, it was radical, it was a new idea, it was untested in Europe, and people said it would never work. Of course, it did, and it was right. Democracies therefore can be upgraded for the better. This place is often styled the mother of all Parliaments, so why should Britain not be a pioneer for a better democracy? We should acknowledge the deep deficiencies of our system and organise for something better.

Alex Burghart: I must say that it is a pleasure—a genuine pleasure—to take part in an Adjournment debate such as this, to respond to a speech that has been very well researched, and to think about the big and important questions we should we always consider when looking at the future of our constitution and our democracy. To an extent, we spend too little time in this place thinking about how the operation of our Parliament, our Government and our relationship with the voters works, so I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for taking the time to do this work.
As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is proposing that we amend the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 to the effect that the sovereign would dissolve Parliament if that Parliament was more than halfway complete—halfway through its five-year maximum term—and if at least half the number of voters who had voted at the previous general election signed a petition calling for Parliament to be dissolved, although as he said, that threshold is perhaps up for debate and is a starter for ten.
There is a mechanism that a Government could use if they wished to pursue this. We have had a very successful online petitions website for a number of years now, which allows people to register their interest in particular issues and to ask the Government to respond. At the moment, however, it does not quite have the verification capabilities necessary to allow Governments to be assured that those signing up are genuine voters, but perhaps those problems can be overcome. With reference to that successful site, I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that, for the past four months, it has had a live petition calling for a general election as soon as possible; in those four months it has acquired about 900,000 votes, which is a good sum but a very long way off the 50% that would be necessary under his system to trigger a general election. Even if these are, by his definition, extraordinary times, the clamour for a general election might not, therefore, be as strong as his remarks suggested.
That said, his well-considered remarks deserve proper consideration here, although I say at the outset—this will be no surprise to the hon. Gentleman—that we are not inclined to support his proposals. The 2022 Act, which fairly recently acquired Royal Assent, covered many of  the issues on how Parliament is to be dissolved and general elections are to be held. I seem to remember that there was no opposition on that from the Labour Benches; I believe all Labour Members abstained. The hon. Gentleman perhaps missed an opportunity to table amendments at that time, but the joy of our system is that we can bring forward good ideas—or less good ideas—at any point.
For a number of practical reasons, the hon. Gentleman’s proposal should be resisted and treated with great caution. It would introduce an unnecessary element of instability into our system; if we were to create a petition mechanism that kicked in at two and a half years, we would very likely find that we quickly entered a time of perpetual campaigning—two and a half years of preparation for starting an official petition campaign, followed by two and a half years of trying to get the petition through. I know the hon. Gentleman is an avid campaigner and will probably relish that prospect, but for those of us who cherish the opportunity for stable Government it would prove a great distraction.
I thought the hon. Gentleman might well mention the Chartists; indeed I feel I see before me a descendant of the Chartists of old. He will take some comfort from the fact that the Chartists were proved right on all their demands apart from one—their request for annual Parliaments. At the time, even some of their most ardent followers disputed the idea on grounds that it would create unnecessary cost, distraction and the inability of Governments to operate over the medium term.
That brings us to the crux of why the proposal would could be damaging to our finely balanced constitution. It is important to have Governments who can be assured that if they have a majority in the House—if they can command the confidence of the House—they will have space to operate and to take difficult decisions. Stability is often most needed at times when Governments are most unpopular, and we would run the risk of introducing a mechanism that would create further instability in periods of instability, and that could be to the detriment of all of us. There is, however, a very interesting idea in the hon. Gentleman’s proposals, and I am sure he will continue to develop them and bring them back to the House.

John Martin McDonnell: The Minister mis-portrays my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), who is more a Digger and Leveller than a Chartist. He seems to be arguing about stability and how we would be in a continuous campaigning mode. Some people would call that campaigning; others might call it a continuous accountability mode in which  Governments have to demonstrate daily that they are abiding by the will of the people who elected them. That is no bad thing, is it?

Alex Burghart: I stand corrected on the heritage of the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). Accountability comes in many forms. We are all accountable to our electorate through media and debates such as this. However, that is different from having a system that gives Governments a period of up to five years in power to make decisions that they can prove the benefits of. Indeed, it was not so long ago that we had Parliaments of seven years in this country and that the French presidency lasted seven years for the reason that Governments had time to fix problems and prove that their method of government was effective.

John Martin McDonnell: That leaves the decision on when to call a general election to the whim of a Prime Minister and the judgment of the ruling party on when it can manipulate its popularity. Surely that is equally unstable. All we want to do is enable the people to make that decision.

Alex Burghart: I have a distinct recollection of a Prime Minister trying to do that in the not-too-distant past and finding that the electorate took a different view on whether she had made the right decision to call that election. Governments and Prime Ministers use that power at their peril, and they are aware of that.
To my mind, and the mind of the Government, it is much better to be able to guarantee a period in which a Prime Minister and Executive who hold the confidence of the House can legislate and operate in order to solve the problems that the country faces. To all parliamentarians comes judgment day, as Karl Popper referred to it. We must all face an election. The question is when. When our electorate go to the polls, they know that they are likely voting for us to be here for five years and on the understanding that, whoever gets into power will get five years to do the best job they can for the country and solve the problems that the country faces. That system has served us well, and that is why we continue to defend it. It has been a pleasure to debate with the hon. Member for Leeds East this evening, and I look forward to talking to him on constitutional matters long into the future.

Eleanor Laing: What an unusually interesting Adjournment debate.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.